Claimant applied for widow’s social security benefits in 1983 based on her deceased husband’s earnings record. He had passed away in 1971.

The agency found that her benefits reduced her benefits because she was receiving a government pension. She appealed, claiming that she qualifies for an exemption from the offset because she had been receiving one-half or more of her support from her husband at the time of his death.

However, the agency determined that, under the pooled-fund method of calculation set out in the agency’s policy manual, she was not receiving one-half support from her husband. The pooled-fund method of calculation presumed that all household income and support was shared equally by house members. This presumption could be rebutted by contrary evidence. However, claimant did not rebut the presumption. Therefore, the offset applied, and her widow’s benefits were reduced.

She appealed to federal district court, which upheld the agency’s decision. She then appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

He sole argument on appeal was that the agency erred in applying the pooled-fund method of calculation. The agency had used three different sets of numbers based on all of the evidence available. No matter which set of figures was used, the result was the same — husband had not provided one-half of her support.

The Court noted that an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations can only be set aside if it is arbitrary and capricious. The Court held that the pooled-fund method of calculation, contained in the agency’s Programs Operations Manual System (POMS), was not arbitrary or capricious. Claimants were allowed, under this method, to rebut the presumption that all household income and support were equally shared. Claimant had the opportunity to rebut this presumption but chose not to do so. Therefore, the decision to apply the offset to reduce her benefits was correct.

See Drombetta v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 845 F.2d 607 (6th Cir. 1987).

See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 88-1c.

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.