Samuel H. Emerson passed away in 1942. In February 14th, 1956 his widow inquired about social security widow’s benefits at the local social security office in Columbus, Ohio. She was informed that her deceased husband had only accumulated five quarters of earnings credits, which was not enough for him to have attained “insured” status for social security benefits.

In May 1st 1962, Mrs. Emerson applied for widow’s social security benefits. In connection with her application she provided proof that Mr. Emerson’s employer had failed to report some of his employment earnings. With proof of these earnings, he had accumulated sufficient quarters of credit to achieve insured status. Accordingly, Mrs. Emerson was awarded widow’s benefits beginning May 1st, 1961, twelve months prior to her application. The law permits social security benefits to be paid retroactively no more than twelve months prior to an application.

Mrs. Emerson appealed the decision, claiming that her application for widow’s benefits should be deemed to have occurred on February 14, 1956 when she verbally inquired about such benefits. She complained that she had been deprived of benefits from February 14th, 1956 through May 1st, 1961 because a social security employee had told her at that time that she did not qualify for benefits.

But the federal district court held that it could not apply equitable principles to skirt application of a plainly written statute which prescribed the form and manner of an application for benefits.

The court cited a case in which equitable estoppel was alleged by a social security claimant, who had relied to her financial detriment on erroneous information supplied by a social security employee. Equitable estoppel is a principle that prevents one party from taking advantage of another, where the party to be estopped induced the other party to take some action resulting in his or her financial detriment. In that case, even though the elements for equitable estoppel were met, the claimant could not rely on this equitable principle to circumvent the clear requirements of the statute.

In the instant case, equitable estoppel did not apply, because Mrs. Emerson had not been misled by social security in February 1956 when she initially inquired about widow’s benefits. She had not been given erroneous information at that time because social security’s records at the time showed that Mr. Emerson did not have enough quarters of coverage to achieve insured status. But, the court held, even if equitable estoppel principles were found to be present, they could not be used to get around the clear requirements of the statute.

See Emerson v. Celebrezze, U.S.D.C., M.D. of Ga. (Civil No. 1001) (06/07/65).

See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 66-17c.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.