Court Opinion

ID: 9408325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 15:02:15.865432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.087009
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12243    Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023    Page: 1 of 18

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                 No. 22-12243
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

        JENNIFER CORNETT MANN-MACKEY,
        Widower of Carl Mackey, former RRB Employee,
                                                                Petitioner,
        versus
        U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,

                                                               Respondent.

                          ____________________

                    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                           Railroad Retirement Board
                            Agency No. 17-AP-0034
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1    Date Filed: 07/12/2023   Page: 2 of 18

        2                     Opinion of the Court              22-12243

                           ____________________

        Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Jennifer Cornett Mann-Mackey, proceeding pro se, petitions
        us for review of the United States Railroad Retirement Board’s
        (“RRB”) decision that she was not without fault as to an overpay-
        ment in the amount of $30,757.59 and, therefore, that waiver of
        recovery was not warranted. Mann-Mackey argues that she was
        not required to report the self-employment income because it fell
        under an exception to the reporting requirements of the Railroad
        Retirement Act (“RRA”), which were set forth in the forms she was
        provided when she applied for a spouse annuity. She also argues
        that recovery of this overpayment would cause financial hardship
        that would warrant the waiver of recovery. In response, RRB ar-
        gues that Mann-Mackey was required to report her self-employ-
        ment income and therefore was not without fault in causing the
        overpayment. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the peti-
        tion.
                                       I.
              Jennifer Mann-Mackey was born in 1945, and was married
        to Carl Mackey, a railroad employee, until his death. Mann-
        Mackey applied for a spouse annuity with the RRB on April 18,
        2005 and the RRB awarded her an annuity beginning July 1, 2005.
        From 2010 to 2014, Mann-Mackey was overpaid benefits under the
        RRA.
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 07/12/2023    Page: 3 of 18

        22-12243              Opinion of the Court                       3

                The Railroad Retirement Act sets the eligibility require-
        ments that the spouse of a covered railroad annuitant must meet
        to receive a spouse annuity. 45 U.S.C. § 231a(c). The RRA requires
        work deductions to be applied to the Tier 1 component of a spouse
        annuity pursuant to the Social Security Act in the same manner as
        if the component were a benefit under the Social Security Act. 45
        U.S.C. § 231a(f)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 403. The Social Security Admin-
        istration (“SSA”) promulgated regulations implementing the an-
        nual exempt amount. 42 U.S.C. § 403 (providing detailed criteria
        for reduction of social security insurance benefits based on, inter
        alia, the individual’s wages and self-employment income);
        20 C.F.R. § 404.430 (defining monthly and annual exempt amounts
        and defining excess earnings). Section 2(f)(1) of the RRA requires
        that any person receiving an annuity that is subject to these work
        deductions report to the RRB the receipt of “excess earnings.”
        45 U.S.C. § 231a(f)(1).
                If the RRB finds that, at any time, more than the correct
        amount of annuities or other benefits has been paid to an individ-
        ual, recovery by adjustment may be made. 45 U.S.C. § 231i(a).
        There are, however, exceptions in which the RRB will not recover
        overpayments. Section 231i(c) provides that “[t]here shall be no
        recovery in any case in which more than the correct amount of an-
        nuities or other benefits has been paid under this under this sub-
        chapter to an individual or payment has been made to an individual
        not entitled thereto who, in the judgment of the Board, is without
        fault when, in the judgment of the Board, recovery would be con-
        trary to the purpose of this subchapter or the Railroad
USCA11 Case: 22-12243       Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023      Page: 4 of 18

        4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12243

        Unemployment Insurance Act or would be against equity or good
        conscience.” Id. § 231i(c). The RRB “shall establish and promul-
        gate rules and regulations to provide for the adjustment of all con-
        troversial matters arising in the administration of this subchapter.”
        Id. § 231f(b)(5).
                The RRB’s regulations provide for this same waiver of re-
        covery, stating that there shall be no recovery of any overpayment
        if in the judgment of the RRB: (a) the overpaid individual is without
        fault, and (b) recovery would be contrary to the purpose of the
        RRA or would be against equity or good conscience. 20 C.F.R.
        § 255.10(a)-(b). The purpose of the RRA is to pay retirement and
        survivor annuities and other benefits to eligible beneficiaries. Id.
        § 255.12. “It is contrary to the purpose of the [RRA] for an over-
        payment to be recovered from income and resources which the in-
        dividual requires to meet ordinary and necessary living expenses.”
        Id. However, if income, resources, or a combination thereof, are
        sufficient to meet such expenses, then recovery of an overpayment
        is not contrary to the purpose of the RRA. Id. “Recovery is con-
        sidered to be against equity or good conscience if a person, in reli-
        ance on payments made to him or her on notice that payment
        would be made, relinquished a significant and valuable right . . . or
        changed his or her position to his or her substantial detriment . . . .”
        20 C.F.R. § 255.13(a). However, “[a]n individual’s ability to repay
        an overpayment is not material to a finding that recovery would be
        against equity or good conscience but is relevant with respect to
        the credibility of a claim of detrimental reliance . . . .”
        Id. § 255.13(b).
USCA11 Case: 22-12243      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023     Page: 5 of 18

        22-12243               Opinion of the Court                         5

                Before recovery of an overpayment may be waived, it must
        be determined that the overpaid individual was without fault, and
        fault is defined as “a defect of judgment or conduct arising from
        inattention or bad faith.” Id. § 255.11(a), (b). “Judgment or con-
        duct is defective when it deviates from a standard of reasonable
        care taken to comply with the entitlement provisions of this chap-
        ter. Conduct includes both action and inaction.” Id. § 255.11(b).
        In determining fault, the RRB also considers all of the circum-
        stances surrounding the overpayment, including: “the ability of the
        overpaid individual to understand the reporting requirements of
        the Railroad Retirement Act or to realize that he or she is being
        overpaid (e.g., age, education, comprehension, physical and men-
        tal condition); the particular cause of non-entitlement to benefits;
        and the number of instances in which the individual may have
        made erroneous statements.” Id. § 255.11(c).
                Circumstances in which the RRB will find an individual at
        fault include, but are not limited to: (1) failure to furnish the RRB
        information which the individual knew or should have known to
        be material; (2) an incorrect statement made by the individual
        which he or she knew or should have known was incorrect; and (3)
        failure to return a payment which the individual knew or should
        have known was incorrect. Id. § 255.11(d)(1)(i)-(iii). If any of those
        circumstances has occurred, the individual shall be presumed to be
        not without fault, but this presumption may be rebutted by presen-
        tation of evidence by the individual. Id. § 255.11(d)(2). Further, for
        the purposes of (d)(1)(i), furnishing information to the Social Secu-
        rity Administration or any other agency shall not be considered to
USCA11 Case: 22-12243      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023     Page: 6 of 18

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12243

        constitute furnishing information to the RRB. Id. § 255.11(d)(3).
        An error on the part of the agency does not extinguish fault on the
        part of the individual. Id. § 255.11(d)(4). As relevant, the RRB will
        find an individual not at fault if the overpayment is the result of
        RRB error of which the overpaid individual was not aware and
        could not reasonably have expected to be aware. Id. § 255.11(e)(1).
               As part of her application for annuity benefits, she certified
        that she had “received and reviewed the booklets RB-30 Spouse
        Annuity and RB-9 Employee and Spouse Annuities – Events that
        Must be Reported” (“Form RB-30” and “Form RB-9,” respectively)
        and that she understood that she was responsible for reporting
        events that would affect her annuity. She also agreed to immedi-
        ately notify the RRB if she earned over the annual earnings exempt
        amount. Along with her application, Mann-Mackey submitted a
        signed “Self-Employment and Substantial Service Questionnaire,”
        where she listed herself as a sole proprietor of a business and a pro-
        fessional counselor. She stated that she began providing services
        on November 1, 1997, and confirmed that the payments she re-
        ceived for those services were reported to the Internal Revenue
        Service (“IRS”).
                Form RB-30 provided, in relevant part, that earnings from
        nonrailroad employment, including self-employment, after an an-
        nuity began could cause work deductions. The form also provided
        that if the applicant worked for an incorporated business that the
        applicant owned, the RRB did not consider that work self-employ-
        ment. The form explained that railroad retirement annuities are
USCA11 Case: 22-12243      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 07/12/2023     Page: 7 of 18

        22-12243               Opinion of the Court                        7

        calculated under a two-tier formula, with Tier 1 being based on
        railroad retirement credits and social security credits the employee
        has acquired and Tier 2 being based on railroad retirement credits
        only. The form described the Tier 1 annuity deductions, which
        provided that earnings from any nonrailroad employment, includ-
        ing self-employment, over the annual earnings exempt amount
        could cause work deductions to the spouse annuity Tier 1 compo-
        nent. It also described the Tier 2 component work deductions,
        which required employee annuitants to report earnings from their
        own “Last Pre-Retirement Nonrailroad Employer (LPE),” defined
        as “any nonrailroad individual, company or institution for whom
        you are working on the date your spouse annuity begins or for
        whom you stopped working in order to receive an annuity.” Earn-
        ings from self-employment or other non-railroad employment
        were not added to LPE earnings when computing Tier 2 compo-
        nent work deductions.
               Form RB-9 provided that whether a person was receiving
        their own annuity or payments on behalf of another person, it was
        the receiver’s responsibility to be aware of events that could affect
        their annuity and notify the RRB immediately if any of the relevant
        events occurred. The form further provided that “[f]ailure to
        promptly notify the RRB usually constitutes ‘fault’ on your part
        that requires you to repay any resulting overpayment.” Form RB-
        9 described how Tier 1 earnings restrictions apply to gross earnings
        from employment for others, as well as any net earnings from self-
        employment, and how the net self-employment amount was the
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 07/12/2023    Page: 8 of 18

        8                     Opinion of the Court                22-12243

        earnings amount after business expenses that were reported to the
        IRS. As to Tier 2, Form RB-9 provided a list of various LPE Excep-
        tions that did not affect payment of the annuity, which included
        “[w]ork as member (owner) of a Limited Liability Corporation
        (LLC)” and “self-employment.”
               In a July 1, 2005, letter, Mann-Mackey was awarded a spouse
        annuity of $1,323.81 to begin on the same date. The Tier 1 com-
        ponent of the annuity was $825.00, and the Tier 2 component was
        $498.81. From 2010 through 2014, the annual earnings exempt
        amounts were $14,160, $14,160, $14,640, $15,120, and $15,480, re-
        spectively. From 2010 through 2014, Mann-Mackey earned thou-
        sands of dollars above the exempt amount, making $61,843,
        $46,865, $37,102, $69,920.37, and $76,940.56, respectively. The
        RRB’s contact log reveals no record of Mann-Mackey contacting
        the board reporting those earnings or inquiring about the reporting
        requirements.
               On December 18, 2014, the RRB sent Mann-Mackey a letter
        that stated that, after reviewing her annuity rates, it had deter-
        mined that she was paid $30,757.59 more in railroad retirement
        benefits than to which she was entitled. The RRB based its finding
        on reported earnings from the Social Security Administration
        (“SSA”) for years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The RRB stated it had
        temporarily adjusted Mann-Mackey’s annuity to deduct $666.00 ef-
        fective with her next payment, based on her estimated earnings of
        $54,934.37 for 2014. The RRB also applied a penalty deduction of
        $655.00 because she had failed to timely report her earnings. The
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023    Page: 9 of 18

        22-12243               Opinion of the Court                       9

        RRB stated that it would release an annual benefit information
        statement of her previous yearly railroad retirement payments, in
        the form of a Form RRB-1099 and that she could fill out a form to
        request her rights regarding her annuity rate change and the
        amount of the current overpayment.
               Mann-Mackey subsequently submitted a Rights Request
        Form, requesting a review of the facts and a waiver consideration,
        a personal conference, and a good-cause determination for the late
        report of earnings. She also attached a letter to the form, in which
        she stated that she failed to report her personal earnings for Octo-
        ber 2012 to the then-present 2015 because she did not know, and
        did not remember, that she had to. She specifically requested that
        her W-2 earnings for 2010 and 2011 be reviewed, as they showed
        that she received no personal income from her services as a pro-
        vider for Wayne Behavioral Health because she never received a
        salary. She then described the “grave economic hardship” that this
        repayment would create for her family. She provided her hus-
        band’s income, her income, and the monthly household expenses
        for review and stated that neither her, nor her husband, would be
        able to obtain additional employment to offset the repayment. She
        concluded by asking the RRB to “take [her] ignorance of the rail-
        road system, as the reason for not reporting,” and by stating she
        did not fully understand that she should have been reporting her
        personal income.
                The RRB’s Reconsideration Section prepared a summary of
        facts, which provided the following. The December 18, 2014, letter
USCA11 Case: 22-12243    Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 07/12/2023   Page: 10 of 18

        10                    Opinion of the Court               22-12243

        to Mann-Mackey was incorrect and that the actual amount of her
        overpayment was $40,260.72, noting that when her original over-
        payment was computed, the Tier 2 work deductions were not ap-
        plied in 2005 and 2006, and that the Tier 1 work deductions were
        not applied to her annuity rates from January through November
        2010.
               A personal conference between the RRB and Mann-Mackey
        was held telephonically on November 16, 2015. An internal mem-
        orandum related to the conference recommended that the RRB
        proceed with the recovery of the debt. After the telephonic con-
        ference, and in anticipation of the decision by the RRB’s Debt Re-
        covery Division, Mann-Mackey submitted a financial disclosure
        statement, which provided information about her dependents, her
        monthly income, the monthly household income, details of other
        debts, and a summary of assets.
                Then, in a March 24, 2016, letter, the RRB denied Mann-
        Mackey’s request for a waiver. The RRB stated that she was origi-
        nally told the overpayment was $30,757.59, but the correct amount
        was $40,260.72. After deducting an accrual in the amount of
        $666.00, the repayment required was $39,594.72. The RRB stated
        that if she disagreed with either this decision or the summary of
        facts prepared for the personal conference held on November 16,
        2015, she had the right to appeal to the RRB’s Bureau of Hearings
        and Appeals. Attached to this letter was the full decision, which
        summarized the procedural history and provided a summary and
        evaluation of the evidence, including quotes from the relevant
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 07/12/2023    Page: 11 of 18

        22-12243               Opinion of the Court                      11

        sections of Form RB-30 and Form RB-9. The Debt Recovery Divi-
        sion found that Mann-Mackey had been furnished with sufficient
        materials to put her on notice that she was supposed to report earn-
        ings over the exempt amount every year and that, because she had
        not done so, the RRB was not able to determine if excess earnings
        and LPE work exceptions applied. It concluded that, because she
        was found to be not without fault, her financial situation could not
        be considered to prevent recovery of the overpayment.
               On May 31, 2016, Mann-Mackey appealed that decision, ar-
        guing that, according to Form RB-9, her self-employment and own-
        ership of a registered LLC qualified as an LPE exception. She as-
        serted that the payments were made to her company, rather than
        to herself personally, and attached her company’s articles of organ-
        ization, her contracts with various clients through the years 2010
        to 2016, her business license, professional license, and letters of
        communication with insurance companies. She also requested the
        RRB to review the documentation of Form RRB-1099s she pro-
        vided previously, as she had attempted to explain that certain in-
        come was medical payments to her LLC, and not her directly, alt-
        hough she was listed as the provider.
               Then, on July 26, 2016, Mann-Mackey received a letter from
        the RRB’s Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. The letter stated that
        the issue in her appeal was whether the overpayment in the
        amount of $39,594.72 could be waived under § 10(c) of the RRA,
        which permitted waiver if both (1) the overpaid person could be
        found without fault in causing or accepting the overpayment and
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023    Page: 12 of 18

        12                     Opinion of the Court                22-12243

        (2) recovery of the overpayment would deprive the individual of
        funds needed for ordinary and necessary living expenses or would
        be against equity or good conscience.
                At a March 8, 2017, hearing, Mann-Mackey confirmed that
        she wished to proceed without an attorney and testified to the fol-
        lowing. She had a doctorate, and her current occupation was a
        military consultant. She was aware that her spouse annuity with
        the RRB was subject to an earnings limitation but did not know the
        difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2. It was her understanding that
        she had the responsibility to inform the RRB of any event, such as
        earning over the annual earnings limitations, if she was a wage em-
        ployee. She explained that she had been self-employed until 2013,
        and, when she signed her application in 2005, she was told that
        there would be periodic monitoring of her income, yet she was no-
        tified for the first time in 2014. Mann-Mackey filled out her spouse
        annuity application in person, and the person that helped her fill it
        out went over it with her. She also signed the self-employment
        questionnaire.
               In response to a question from the hearings officer about her
        wage record for the Wayne County Board of Education, Mann-
        Mackey stated that she was not an employee of that board but was,
        rather, an elected official from January 1, 1999, through December
        31, 2006. She disputed that the earnings she received in 2005 and
        2006 from the board were employment earnings. She claimed that
        the earnings she reported for 2010 to 2012 were self-employment,
        as she did not become a wage employee until 2013. Mann-Mackey
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023    Page: 13 of 18

        22-12243               Opinion of the Court                       13

        received the Form RB-30 and Form RB-9 but had not read or re-
        viewed them afterwards nor looked at them since 2005. She was
        also not aware that earnings from any non-railroad employment,
        including self-employment, over the annual earnings exempt
        amount could cause work deductions to her spouse annuity under
        Tier 1. Until 2014, she only received annual earnings statements
        from the RRB. And she did not report her earnings to the RRB for
        the years 2010 to 2014.
               Mann-Mackey stated that she did not willfully fail to report
        but instead failed to do so because she did not remember she had
        to report, based on instructions she had received back in 2005. She
        read the LPE exceptions and believed that her work fell under
        those exceptions because the income was not paid directly to her
        as wages, but rather, because she was the sole owner of an LLC.
        She reiterated that she did not think she had to report self-employ-
        ment earnings.
               As to her current financial situation, Mann-Mackey noted
        her tax return, which was entered into the record, showed that her
        family had a loss of over 50 percent of their income, totaling about
        $71,000. Mann-Mackey and the hearings officer reviewed her cur-
        rent total family income and household expenses, with the total
        expenses coming out to $11,389, with Mann-Mackey still being
        short $2,000 every month. Mann-Mackey then described how col-
        lection would affect her household financially. In her closing state-
        ment, she did not deny that the RRB told her in 2005 that she
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 07/12/2023   Page: 14 of 18

        14                    Opinion of the Court                22-12243

        needed to report her income but stated that she just did not re-
        member.
                On March 28, 2017, the RRB hearings officer issued a deci-
        sion, determining that Mann-Mackey received a net overpayment
        of $39,506.72 and that the RRB’s right to recover that amount could
        not be waived. But the hearings officer found that the penalty de-
        duction of $655.00 could be removed, as Mann-Mackey’s earnings
        had been reported on the wage record obtained from the SSA. Af-
        ter reviewing the evidence of her earnings, the hearings officer
        found that the record showed that Mann-Mackey had been fur-
        nished with sufficient material to put her on notice that earnings
        over a certain amount would result in a deduction from the bene-
        fits payable to her. The officer further found that the information
        given to Mann-Mackey clearly stated that earnings from self-em-
        ployment over the annual earnings exempt amount could cause
        work deductions to her spouse annuity Tier 1 component. The
        officer determined that Mann-Mackey was provided with infor-
        mation regarding work deductions for her last pre-retirement non-
        railroad employer, and those deductions did not include earnings
        for work in an elected position. The officer found that nothing in
        the testimony or administrative record showed that Mann-Mackey
        did not or could not understand the earnings limitation placed on
        her annuity. And because she failed to exhibit a reasonable amount
        of care in monitoring her earnings and the effects they would have
        on her annuity, the hearings officer found that she was not without
        fault. Therefore, because she could not satisfy the first condition
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023     Page: 15 of 18

        22-12243               Opinion of the Court                        15

        for waiver of the overpayment, her financial situation could not be
        considered to prevent recovery, and recovery of the overpayment
        could not be waived under § 10(c) of the RRA. Mann-Mackey ap-
        pealed this decision, stating that she would submit additional evi-
        dence, e.g., revised IRS tax returns, that would reflect that the in-
        come should not have been in her personal IRS data.
               On July 15, 2021, the RRB issued its decision. The RRB
        noted that it had not received any amended tax returns from Mann-
        Mackey. The RRB agreed with the hearings officer that (1) she was
        not without fault in causing the $30,757.59 overpayment attributa-
        ble to her self-employment earnings from 2010 to 2013 because she
        had been informed of that reporting requirement, and (2) the $655
        penalty should not be applied because she had reported the earn-
        ings in question to the SSA. The RRB noted that Form RB-30 stated
        that net earnings from self-employment must be reported and may
        cause work deductions. Thus, the RRB found, her argument that
        her earnings were business income, rather than personal income,
        did not affect the finding that the earnings were due to substantial
        services that she had rendered to her LLC and, thus, were subject
        to the work deductions under § 203 of the Social Security Act, as
        incorporated by § 2(f)(2) of the RRA. The RRB therefore found
        that her failing to report significant earnings from self-employment
        as a consultant deviated from the standard of care that a reasonable
        person would have exercised, such that she was not without fault
        in causing the 2010 to 2013 overpayment. However, the RRB re-
        versed the portion of the hearing officer’s decision as to the 2005 to
USCA11 Case: 22-12243       Document: 34-1         Date Filed: 07/12/2023        Page: 16 of 18

        16                        Opinion of the Court                     22-12243

        2006 overpayment, 1 finding that Mann-Mackey was without fault
        in causing the $8,843.13 overpayment related to her service as an
        elected official in 2005 and 2006. The RRB found that recovery of
        that overpayment would be contrary to the purposes of the RRA
        because recovery would deprive Mann-Mackey of income and re-
        sources required to meet ordinary and necessary living expenses.
               Accordingly, the RRB granted waiver of recovery of the
        2005 to 2006 overpayment in the amount of $8,848.13 and denied
        waiver of recovery of the 2010 to 2013 overpayment in the amount
        of $30,757.59. In other words, Mann-Mackey’s appeal was granted
        in part and denied in part.
               Mann-Mackey then petitioned this Court for review. 2
                                             II.
               We have jurisdiction to review RRB decisions pursuant to
        section 8 of the RRA, codified as amended at 45 U.S.C. § 231g,
        which incorporates by reference the provisions pertaining to

        1A  majority of the RRB supported the reversal, but the Management Member
        of the RRB dissented.
        2 During this appeal, the RRB filed a supplemental appendix, in which it pro-
        vided an October 20, 2022, decision regarding the payment at issue. This de-
        cision explained that the RRB had discovered an error in the computation of
        the overpayment and that the correct calculation would have increased the
        amount Mann-Mackey was liable to pay. The RRB, on its own motion, con-
        sidered whether to reopen the July 15, 2021, decision, and a majority of the
        RRB voted against reopening the case. Therefore, the overpayment amount
        at issue is the amount provided for in the July 15, 2021, decision—$30,757.59.
USCA11 Case: 22-12243     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 07/12/2023    Page: 17 of 18

        22-12243               Opinion of the Court                       17

        judicial review set forth in section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemploy-
        ment Insurance Act, codified as amended at 45 U.S.C. § 355(f).
        Johnson v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 925 F.2d 1374, 1376 (11th Cir. 1991).
        We will affirm the RRB if its factual findings are supported by sub-
        stantial evidence and its decision is not based upon an error of law.
        Id. While we are bound by the RRB’s findings of fact if they are
        supported by substantial evidence, we are not bound in determin-
        ing the correctness of the RRB’s legal conclusions. Id.
               Here, substantial evidence supports the RRB’s findings that
        Mann-Mackey was provided with sufficient information such that
        she should have known she needed to report her earnings above
        the annual exempt amount and that, therefore, she was not with-
        out fault for the overpayment, such that a waiver of recovery was
        not warranted. We find Mann-Mackey’s argument that she was
        not required to report her self-employment income unavailing.
        Mann-Mackey, an educated individual with a doctorate, certified
        that she had reviewed Form RB-30 and Form RB-9 when she filled
        out her application. And the forms provide that her self-employ-
        ment income could cause deductions to the Tier 1 component of
        her annuity. Further, the application for annuity benefits provided
        that Mann-Mackey must immediately notify the RRB if she earned
        over the annual earnings exempt amount. Therefore, these mate-
        rials provided Mann-Mackey with notice as to the reporting re-
        quirements. And, as she testified, she did not review the forms nor
        had looked at them since 2005. See § 255.11(b). As such, we will
USCA11 Case: 22-12243   Document: 34-1    Date Filed: 07/12/2023   Page: 18 of 18

        18                   Opinion of the Court             22-12243

        not disturb the RRB’s conclusion that Mann-Mackey was not with-
        out fault.
              Accordingly, we deny Mann-Mackey’s petition for review.
              PETITION DENIED.