20 C.F.R. § 404.511

When an individual is at “fault” in a deduction overpayment

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Degree of care. An individual will not be without fault if the Administration has evidence in its possession which shows either a lack of good faith or failure to exercise a high degree of care in determining whether circumstances which may cause deductions from his benefits should be brought to the attention of the Administration by an immediate report or by return of a benefit check. The high degree of care expected of an individual may vary with the complexity of the circumstances giving rise to the overpayment and the capacity of the particular payee to realize that he is being overpaid. Accordingly, variances in the personal circumstances and situations of individual payees are to be considered in determining whether the necessary degree of care has been exercised by an individual to warrant a finding that he was without fault in accepting a deduction overpayment.

(b) Subsequent deduction overpayments. The Social Security Administration generally will not find an individual to be without fault where, after having been exonerated for a “deduction overpayment” and after having been advised of the correct interpretation of the deduction provision, the individual incurs another “deduction overpayment” under the same circumstances as the first overpayment. However, in determining whether the individual is without fault, the Social Security Administration will consider all of the pertinent circumstances surrounding the prior and subsequent “deduction overpayments,” including any physical, mental, educational, or linguistic limitations (including any lack of facility with the English language) which the individual may have.

[16 FR 13054, Dec. 28, 1951, as amended at 59 FR 1634, Jan. 12, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Leonard ALBALOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis S. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appe (1990) ca9 · cites it 2× “It does appear that 20 C.F.R. § 404.511 sets a higher standard than that set by 20 C.”
Jerome BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, (1990) ca2 · cites it 2× “The pertinent regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.511 , places on recipients of benefits the responsibility to exercise "a high degree of care in determining whether circumstances which may cause deductions from his benefits should be brought to the attention of the Administration.”
Karen L. PLILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appe (1989) ca6 · cites it 2× “” Instead, the Appeals Council applied the stricter standard specifically authorized in deduction-overpayment cases under 20 CFR § 404.511 . Using this standard, the Appeals Council found that Pliley was not without fault, and therefore must repay the money.”
Price v. Folsom (1959) njd “The applicable regulation setting forth when an individual is at “fault” in a deduction over-payment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.511 , Title 42 U.S.C.A.Appendix, provides : “(a) Degree of care.”
Rebak v. Matthews (1977) nysd “The applicable Social Security Administration Regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.511 (a), 10 provides in pertinent part; An individual will not be “without fault” if the Administration has evidence in its possession which shows either a lack of good faith or failure to exercise a high…”
Vosler v. Bowen (1988) wyd · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 404.511 . The effect of this regulation is somewhat ameliorated in the same section where it is also stated that [t]he high degree of care expected of an individual may vary with the complexity of the circumstances giving rise to the overpayment and the capacity of…”
Wanda CONNELL, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee (1989) ca8 “Fault, for the purposes of deduction over-payments, is defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.511 (a) (1988): An individual will not be “without fault” if the Administration has evidence in its possession which shows either a lack of good faith or failure to exercise a high degree of care…”
Patton v. Bowen (1988) njd “20 C.F.R. § 404.511 . See Elliot v. Weinberger, 564 F.”
Margaret E. Gruver v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1970) cadc “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.511 (a) (1969). 20 . 42 U.”
Sturdevant v. Celebrezze (1965) paed “In addition, 20 CFR § 404.511 provides: “WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL IS AT ‘FAULT’ IN A DEDUCTION-OVERPAYMENT.”
Stallings v. Bowen (1987) mied “511 provide: An individual will not be “without fault” if the Administration has evidence in its possession which shows either a lack of good faith or failure to exercise a high degree of care in determining whether circumstances which may cause deductions from his benefits…”
Miller v. Richardson (1971) nysd · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.511 . 3 The hearing examiner heard the plaintiff’s oral testimony and in that respect was in a better position than is this Court to determine whether the plaintiff was at fault in causing the overpayment.”
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.