42 U.S.C. § 415
NO REDUCTION IN BENEFITS.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law (other than the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.]) that requires consideration of one or more financial circumstances of an individual, for the purpose of determining eligibility to receive, or the amount of, any assistance or benefit authorized by such law to be provided to or for the benefit of such individual, funds (including interest accruing) in an individual development account under this Act [see Short Title of 1998 Amendment note set out under section 9801 of this title] shall be disregarded for such purpose with respect to any period during which such individual maintains or makes contributions into such an account.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 194
cases (46 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Califano v. Webster
Califano v. Webster (1977)
“V), old-age insurance benefits are computed on the basis of the wage earner's "average monthly wage" earned during his "benefit computation years" which are the "elapsed years" (reduced by five) during which the wage earner's covered wages were highest.”
Linda Larson v. Andrew Saul (2020)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(7)(A)(ii)(III). Larson contends that he is entitled to the uniformed-services exception because he was required to serve in the National Guard (a uniformed service) for the duration of his employment as a dual-status technician.”
Kientz v. Commissioner, SSA (2020)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 415 . The formula determines how much money an individual receives from the SSA in retirement based partially on how much the individual paid into the system via Social Security taxes.”
United States v. Locke (1985)
“§ 1319 (a)(5)(B); 42 U. S. C. § 415 (a)(7)(E)(ii) (1982 ed.”
Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
“[24] The level of benefits is determined by the worker's average monthly earnings during the period prior to disability, his age, and other factors not directly related to financial need, specified in 42 U. S. C. § 415 (1970 ed., Supp. III). See § 423 (a) (2).”
David Babcock v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (2020)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(7)(A). Babcock asked the SSA to reconsider its decision, citing an exception to the WEP for payments “based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service.”
Donald Larry Martin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner (2018)
“2 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(1) (2018). 3 See H.R.”
Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security (2000)
“Ward’s retirement insurance benefits were properly reduced pursuant to the Windfall Elimination Provision (“WEP”) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(7) (1994). Ward has appealed.”
Ralph Stroup v. Jo Ane B. Barnhart (2003)
“CUDAHY, Circuit Judge: Former police officer Ralph Stroup appeals a district court decision upholding the Social Security Administration’s calculation of his disability benefits under the windfall elimination provision of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(7). Finding…”
Babcock v. Kijakazi (2022)
“Held: Civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual- status military technician are not payments based on “service as a member of a uniformed service” under 42 U. S. C. §415 (a)(7)(A)(III). 2 BABCOCK v.”
Charles Mitchael v. Carolyn W. Colvin (2016)
“2011), that the WEP did not apply to David Petersen, a retired, dual status National Guard technician, for purposes of calculating his Social Security Retirement benefit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 415 (a)(7)(A) (providing exception to application of WEP where pension payments are…”
Durden v. Colvin (2016)
“42 U.S.C. §§ 415 (a) and 416(i)(l). The last date that a claimant meets the requirements of being insured is commonly referred to as the "date last insured.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 415(a) — 2 cases
Watts v. Veneman (1971)
— 42 U.S.C. § 415(b) — 1 case
Nettles v. Celebrezze (1964)
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.