A claimant filed for parents’ social security benefits based on her deceased son’s earnings record after he died while on active military duty during World War II.

A condition precedent to her receipt of such benefits was providing to social security timely proof that she was receiving one half of her support from her son at the time of his death.

She claimed, and it was undisputed, that when she had inquired of an employee at the local social security office if she needed to provide additional proof in support of her application, she had been informed that this was not necessary.

The agency denied her claim on the grounds that she had not provided timely proof that she was receiving one half of her support from her son at the time of his death.

She asserted the defense that she had relied to her detriment on the misrepresentation of the government employee who that she did not need to provide this evidence.

This was basically a claim of estoppel; namely, that the government was estopped from insisting on adherence to the statutory requirement of proof that she was receiving one half of her support from her son at the time of his death as a condition to her receipt of parents’ benefits where a government employee had told her she need not provide such proof.

But the federal district court for the western district of Arkansas held that the government could not be bound by the doctrine of estoppel where one of its employees acted outside the scope of his authority. In the absence of such a rule the wheels of government could conceivably come to a grinding halt, as it would be forced to act as a guarantor of all the acts or statements of every one of its employees in each of its various departments, even when such acts or statements were beyond the employees’ scope of authority. Such a result would not be in the public interest.

The claimant failed to point to any authority or basis for taking the facts of her case outside of the general rule. Thus, although it was an unfortunate result, she was denied parents’ benefits because of her failure to meet one of the statutory requirements for receipt of such benefits.

See Taylor v. Fleming, 186 F.Supp. 280 (W.D. Ark. 1960). See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 64-18c.

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