Pierce v. Commissioner

651 F. Supp. 2d 211 (2009)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Pierce v. Commissioner

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
651 F. Supp. 2d 211 (2009)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Lois Pierce (plaintiff) worked for the Social Security Administration (SSA) (defendant) until 1982, after which she took an unpaid leave of absence because of mental impairment. In May 1983, Pierce applied for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) disability retirement pension. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denied Pierce’s application because of insufficient medical evidence. Pierce petitioned for reconsideration and submitted additional evidence demonstrating she suffered from a psychiatric disease that impaired her ability to perform her employment duties. OPM approved Pierce’s second application, finding that Pierce was eligible for disability pension benefits as of April 1984. In 2003, Pierce applied for social security spousal benefits. Although her application was initially approved, SSA subsequently notified Pierce that her benefits had been overpaid because SSA neglected to apply the pension offset to her spousal benefits. SSA informed Pierce that the pension offset reduced her spousal benefit to zero, eliminating Pierce’s spousal benefit eligibility. Pierce requested a hearing, arguing that (1) she was eligible for the CSRS pension prior to July 1983 even though OPM only approved her pension eligibility commencing April 1984; and (2) because she was eligible before July 1983, the pension offset did not apply. The administrative-law judge (ALJ) affirmed the denial, finding that Pierce had failed to prove she was eligible for her pension prior to July 1983. Pierce did not submit additional medical evidence at the hearing. The SSA Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Pierce appealed to federal district court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Simandle, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership