20 C.F.R. § 498.106

Determinations regarding the amount or scope of penalties and assessments

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

(a) In determining the amount or scope of any penalty and assessment, as applicable, in accordance with § 498.103(a) and (b) and 498.104, the Office of the Inspector General will take into account:

(1) The nature of the statements, representations, or actions referred to in § 498.102(a) and (b) and the circumstances under which they occurred;

(2) The degree of culpability of the person committing the offense;

(3) The history of prior offenses of the person committing the offense;

(4) The financial condition of the person committing the offense; and

(5) Such other matters as justice may require.

(b) In determining the amount of any penalty in accordance with § 498.103(c) and (d), the Office of the Inspector General will take into account—

(1) The nature and objective of the advertisement, solicitation, or other communication, and the circumstances under which they were presented;

(2) The frequency and scope of the violation, and whether a specific segment of the population was targeted;

(3) The prior history of the individual, organization, or entity in their willingness or refusal to comply with informal requests to correct violations;

(4) The history of prior offenses of the individual, organization, or entity in their misuse of program words, letters, symbols, and emblems;

(5) The financial condition of the individual or entity; and

(6) Such other matters as justice may require.

(c) In cases brought under section 1140 of the Social Security Act, the use of a disclaimer of affiliation with the United States Government, the Social Security Administration or its programs will not be considered as a mitigating factor in determining the amount of a penalty in accordance with § 498.106.

[60 FR 58226, Nov. 27, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 18080, Apr. 24, 1996; 71 FR 28581, May 17, 2006]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2016–2018 · leading case: Crespo v. Colvin, 824 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Crespo v. Colvin, 824 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2016). “20 C.F.R. § 498.106 . The ALJ pointed to several factors in favor of imposing the penalty.”

Cappetta v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 904 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1320a-8(c) and 20 CFR § 498.106 (a) ). Applying these factors, the DAB determined that Cappetta was in fact culpable, reversing the ALJ's finding.”

Cappetta v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1320a‐8(c) and 20 CFR § 498.106 (a)). 6 Applying these factors, the DAB determined that Cappetta was 7 in fact culpable, reversing the ALJ’s finding.”

Jose Crespo v. Carolyn W. Colvin (7th Cir. 2016). “20 C.F.R. § 498.106 . The ALJ pointed to several factors in favor of imposing the penalty.”

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.