A person who telephones or visits a Board office stating that he or she wishes to file for an annuity or lump sum, but puts off filing because of an action or lack of action by an employee of the Board, can establish a filing date based on that oral notice if the following conditions are met:
(a) There is evidence which establishes that the employee of the Board failed to—
(1) Tell the person that it was necessary to file an application on the proper form; or
(2) Tell the person that a written statement could protect the filing date; or
(3) Give the person the proper application form; or
(4) Correctly inform the person of his or her eligibility.
(b) The person files an application on one of the forms described in part 200 of this chapter within 90 days after the date a notice is sent advising the person of the need to file an application.
(c) The claimant is alive when the application is filed except as provided in § 217.10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case:
Mabrey v. RRRB (5th Cir. 2025).
Mabrey v. RRRB (5th Cir. 2025).
“20 C.F.R. § 217.21 . Mabrey argues that during four phone conversations with Board staff between 2018 and 2019, staff members failed to inform her of her eligibility to file, thereby deterring her from applying.”
Fancher v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd., 205 F. App'x 221 (5th Cir. 2006).
“20 C.F.R. § 217.21 (2006). Fancher does not allege that he attempted to file for an annuity after he was disqualified for graduating from high school.”
Fancher v. US RR Ret. Bd (5th Cir. 2006).
“20 C.F.R. § 217.21 (2006). 4 Fancher does not allege that he attempted to file for an annuity after he was disqualified for graduating from high school.”
Perry v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 29 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
“20 C.F.R. § 217.21 . In this case, it is not even necessary to determine whether Perry meets the relevant conditions because the Board’s conclusion that Perry “fail[ed]” to “express[ ] an intent to file for [a disability] annuity” is supported by substantial evidence in the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.