20 C.F.R. § 404.504
Relation to provisions for reductions and increases
The amount of an overpayment or underpayment is the difference between the amount paid to the beneficiary and the amount of the payment to which the beneficiary was actually entitled. Such payment, for example, would be equal to the difference between the amount of a benefit in fact paid to the beneficiary and the amount of such benefit as reduced under section 202(j)(1), 202(k)(3), 203(a), or 224(a), or as increased under section 202(d)(2), 202(m), or 215 (f) and (g). In effecting an adjustment with respect to an overpayment, no amount can be considered as having been withheld from a particular benefit which is in excess of the amount of such benefit as so decreased.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U.S. 83 (1990).
Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U.S. 83 (1990). “The OASDI regulation unhelpfully provides that "[t]he amount of an overpayment or underpayment is the difference between the amount paid to the beneficiary and the amount of the payment to which the beneficiary was actually entitled," 20 CFR § 404.504 (1989), but the Secretary…”
Maxine WEBB, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Appellee, 851 F.2d 190 (8th Cir. 1988). “Webb attacks 20 C.F.R. § 404.504 (1987), the regulation which requires that any overpayments be reduced by the amount of underpayments to the same claimant, thereby eliminating the claimant’s opportunity to receive a waiver of the offset portion of the overpayment.”
Jones v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 150 F. App'x 1 (1st Cir. 2005). “§ 404 (b) (only barring any “adjustment” in payments to, or “recovery” from, persons “without fault”).”
Carol Geschke v. Michael Astrue, 393 F. App'x 470 (9th Cir. 2010). “§ 404 ; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.504 , 404.509, 404.1594(g).”
Everhart v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 1532 (10th Cir. 1988). “The regulation applicable to Title II payments, 20 C.F.R. § 404.504 , is similarly worded at the outset and is administered in a similar manner.”
Everhart v. Wise, 901 F.2d 838 (10th Cir. 1990). “1988), that the Secretary’s netting regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.504 and 416.538, were invalid due to inconsistency with the underlying statutes, 42 U.”
Raul Garcia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (6th Cir. 2018). “20 C.F.R. § 404.504 . In the case of an overpayment, “there shall be no .”
Melissa Cohan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (6th Cir. 2020). “20 C.F.R. § 404.504 . -7- Case No. 19-3453, Cohan v.”
Fontanez v. United States Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.D.C. 2020). “20 CFR § 404.504 ; Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U.”
Almond A. Brooks v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (C.D. Cal. 2019). “On judicial review under § 5 405(g), the district court “must determine whether the Commissioner established the 6 fact and amount of overpayments by substantial evidence.” McCarthy, 223 F.3d at 7 1124. 8 The ALJ found that Plaintiff was entitled to a nine-month trial period…”
Richards v. Berryhill (N.D. Ill. 2019). “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.504 . Background This Social Security Administration appeal involves the SSA’s Notice of Award letters, Notice of Reconsideration letters, and an unusual procedural posture.”
Patel v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. (D. Maryland 2021). “An overpayment is defined as “the difference between the amount paid to the beneficiary and the amount of the payment to which the beneficiary was actually entitled.”
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.