Document: 450 U.S. 785 101 S.Ct. 1468 67 L.Ed.2d 685 Richard SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Servicesv.Ann HANSEN. No. 80-1162. April 6, 1981. Rehearing Denied May 26, See 451 1032, 3023. PER CURIAM. 1 On June 12, 1974, respondent met for about 15 minutes with Don Connelly, a field representative the Social Security Administration (SSA), orally inquired him whether she was eligible "mother's insurance benefits" under § 202(g) Act (Act), 64 Stat. 485, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 402(g). Connelly erroneously told her that not, left SSA office without having filed written application. By Act's terms, such benefits are available only to one who, among other qualifications, "has application." 402(g)(1)(D). regulation promulgated pursuant Act, applications satisfy "filed application" requirement. 20 CFR 404.601 (1974).1 The SSA's Claims Manual, internal handbook, instructs representatives advise applicants advantages filing recommend who uncertain their eligibility they file applications. however, did not application; nor he doing so. question is Connelly's erroneous statement neglect Manual estop petitioner, Services, from denying retroactive period in which but had 2 Respondent eventually application after learning 1975 fact eligible. She then began receiving benefits. Pursuant 202(j)(1) Act,2 also received preceding 12 months, maximum benefit allowed by Act. contended, should receive months 1974 interview Connelly. An Administrative Law Judge rejected this claim, concluding petitioner determining respondent's date Appeals Council affirmed. 3 brought lawsuit District Court Vermont,3 held written-application requirement "unreasonably restrictive" applied facts case. A divided panel Second Circuit 619 F.2d 942 (1980). It agreed an initial matter requiring valid has no legally binding effect. But it considered mere "procedural requirement" lesser import than been "substantively eligible" Id., at 948. In circumstances, majority held, "misinformation provided Government official combined showing misconduct (even if does rise level violation rule) be sufficient require estoppel." Ibid. summarizing its holding, stated may estopped "where (a) procedural substantive involved (b) manual or guide some source objective standards conduct exists supports inference employee." 949. 4 Friendly dissented. He argued majority's conclusion irreconcilable decisions Court, e. g., Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 380, 68 1, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947); Montana Kennedy, 366 308, 81 1336, 6 313 (1961); INS Hibi, 414 5, 94 19, 38 7 (1973) (per curiam ), Courts Appeals, Leimbach Califano, 596 300 (CA8 1979); Cheers HEW, 610 463 (CA7 1979). 5 We agree dissent. This never decided what type employee will insisting upon compliance regulations governing distribution welfare two cases involving denial citizenship, declined decide even "affirmative misconduct" would neither case involved. supra, 8-9, S.Ct., 21-22; 314-315, 1340-1341. recognized, "the duty all courts observe conditions defined Congress charging public treasury." 385, 3. Lower federal have recognized also, consistently relied on Merrill refusing where applicant lost because possibly replies oral inquiries. 304-305; 468-469; Goldberg Weinberger, 546 477, 481 (CA2 1976), cert. denied, 431 937, 97 2648, 53 255 (1977); Simon 593 121, 123 (CA9 Parker Finch, 327 F.Supp. 193, 195 (ND Ga. 1971); Flamm Ribicoff, 203 507, 510 (SDNY 1961). another line cases,4 we convinced conduct—which conceded less misconduct," F.2d, 948—does justify abnegation duty. erred telling ineligible sought. unfamiliar recent amendment afforded respondent. 947. Or gave too little information know error. 955 (Friendly, J., dissenting). worst, cause take action, cf. fail could correct any time. Similarly, there doubt failed follow neglecting regulation. legal force, bind SSA. Rather, 13-volume handbook use thousands employees, including hundreds employees untold numbers inquiries like each year. If minor breach suffices put "at risk every alleged failure agent instructions last detail thousand deprive experience taught essential honest effective administration Laws." 956 United States Caceres, 440 741, 755-756, 99 1465, 1473-1474, 59 733 (1979).5 8 Finally, distinction between "substantiv[e] eligib[ility]" estopping expressly them, delegated task providing requisite manner court more authorized overlook writing receipt 9 sum, errors "fal[l] far short" raise serious 314, 1340. Accordingly, grant motion leave proceed in- forma pauperis petition certiorari reverse judgment Appeals. so ordered. 11 Justice MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN, joins, dissenting. summary reversal rare disposition, usually reserved situations law settled stable, dispute, decision below clearly Because case, I dissent instead set plenary consideration. 13 issue here important, economic terms Hansen, constitutional well. when equitably distinguished inconsistent treatment subject considerable ferment. See, Corniel-Rodriquez INS, 532 301 1976); Lazy FC Ranch, 985 1973); Fox Lake State Bank, 962 1966); Walsonavich States, 335 96 (CA3 1964); Simmons 308 938 (CA5 1962); Semaan Mumford, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 282, 704 (1964); Eichelberger Commissioner Internal Revenue, 88 874 1937). generally K. Davis, Seventies 17.01 (1976); Note, Equitable Estoppel Government, 79 Colum.L.Rev. 551 (1979). Indeed, today recognizes "[t]his benefits." Ante, 788. goes suggest estoppel justified circumstances. Yet rather address comprehensive fashion, simply concludes case.1 apparent message today's decision—that see one—provides inadequate guidance lower area that, contrary view, settled. 14 attempt distinguish conflicting itself demonstrates impropriety disposition. declines "consider correctness these cases" notes distinguishable present 789, n. 4. fails explain why how purported factual distinctions affect estopped. Thus, guessing differences cited real consequence. For example, distinguishes ground "estoppel threaten fisc." Even accepting characterization correct,2 am unable discern opinion rules differ depending party asserting seeks monetary form Governmental action inaction. claim "a bank [that] certain before provide necessary information." trust intend likely prevail raised person benefits, do believe basis distinguishing case—that applications—is substantively different Government's supply sought apply third offered majority—one apparently differentiates statements ones—might relevant proof cases. However, against restricted past misrepresentations, see, leaves unclear limitation future. majority, haste added confusion already unsettled hinting, deciding, various nuances dispositive claims Government. Moreover, summarily reversing glosses over sorts situations—such presented increasingly led conclude hard fast fair constitutionally required. characterizes innocent mistake, based his unfamiliarity "recent amendment" rendering possibly, speculates, give "information . error." 789. further error essentially harmless, because, "did time." 16 While characterizations certainly facilitate disposition seeks, fit effect year half incorrectly informed quite clear make judgment, inclined.3 incorrect assessment act detriment "could time" blink face obvious. respondent, meet them concerning necessarily free error, preliminary advice inevitably accorded great weight who—like respondent—are totally uneducated intricacies laws. Hence, effort cast architect own predicament wholly unpersuasive. Instead, fault timely entitled must rest squarely first, advised and, second, same breached encourage regardless views eligibility. 17 my sort governmental directly causes individual's comply purely established agency, individual receive. analogous situation, concluded agency "may extinguish entitlement otherwise beneficiaries, comply, minimum, procedures." Morton Ruiz, 415 199, 235, 1055, 1074, 39 270 (1974). At very least, deserves casual receives today. recodified now appears §§ 404.602-404.614 section provides, pertinent part: "An subsectio[n] (g) month August 1950 therefor prior end shall files twelfth immediately succeeding month. ." 402(j)(1). Judicial review final 405(g). Marshall cites several Post, 791. cases, entered into agreements supported estoppel. E. 985, 990 96, 100-101 1964). others, fisc here. 284, 704, 706, (1964). another, claiming information. 1966). need consider think easily situation rely above. contention made Caceres IRS electronic eavesdropping result exclusion trial evidence obtained eavesdropping. rejecting contention, noted per se rule "would away Executive Department primary responsibility fashioning appropriate remedy regulations. since content, indeed existence, remain within Executive's sole authority, might well fewer protective long run, better those contained tolerate occasional kind displayed record, either except mandated statute, framed precatory form." U.S., 1473-1474. Ironically, central today, (1973), rendered briefing argument. sought-after benefit—naturalization—20 years expired, arose solely general adequately inform noncitizens served Armed Services during World War II possible naturalization. Here, contrast, time arises specific failures answer correctly questions Semaan, ultimately reinstatement job discharged. errs speculation Friendly's assertion, dissent, husband died. view implausible. asked mother's These persons whose spouses died, 402(g), known record assumed focused marital status husband's death, mistaken belief divorced testified "said [eligible] death." App. Brief Opposition 2a. (Emphasis added.)

Category: 1