Court Opinion

ID: 9455409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:21:04.582316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:34.454482
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Appellant’s job was abolished on February 1, 1966. Since he did not desire to move, he had two alternatives: (1) to resign, accept a separation allowance and apply for unemployment benefits, or (2) resign, accept a separation allowance and apply for an early retirement annuity under the Act. It is not disputed that had he chosen to follow the first alternative, he would have become eligible for the supplemental annuity. The appellant elected the second rather than the first alternative. However, as the referee indicated in appellant’s appeal from the adverse decision of the Division of Claims Operation, he did so only because Railroad and Union officials 1 erroneously advised him that he would not be eligible for a life insurance policy if he chose the first alternative.2 But for the mistake, appellant would have made his annuity application at age 65 and received the supplemental annuity as a matter of course.
The Board stated, and the majority apparently agree, that the mistake was irrelevant. Their conclusion is based on the clear language of the Act. Granting that the language of that Act is clear, it does not follow that the material mistake here involved was rendered irrelevant. One of the purposes of the legal doctrine of mistake is to permit a finding that despite appearances there was no agreement in fact. To apply the mistake doctrine to this case is not to deny that the supplemental annuity should go only to those whose original annuity was “first awarded” after July 1, 1966. Rather, it *526is to recognize that because of a material mistake, in legal reality there was no award prior to July 1, 1966.
It is true that the legislative history shows that the words “first awarded” were employed to prevent an annuitant from withdrawing his application on which an award had been made before July 1966, in order to obtain a later award and thus become entitled to the supplemental annuity. But appellant’s application was based on a material mistake having nothing to do with the supplemental annuity legislation. His desire to be relieved of that mistake does not bring his case within the ambit of those sought to be excluded by that legislation.
Since we are concerned with a case of mistake personal to appellant and since he would otherwise have been entitled to the supplemental annuity, this is not a case where the granting of relief would impair the temporal limits of the Act. I would reverse the Board and remand so that it could apply the proper legal principle in determining this case.

. It is important to note that while we are dealing with an Act of Congress the fact is that its content was the result of collective bargaining between the railroads and the unions and the railroads finance the payment of the annuities. U.S.Code Congressional and Admin.News, pp. 3596 & 3589 (89th Cong., 2d Sess. 1966).

. I think that on this record it must be assumed that appellant’s election was based on a material mistake.