Gail Schneyer v. Carolyn W. Colvin ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 11 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GAIL M. SCHNEYER,                                No. 12-56617
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00965-JVS-SP
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 6, 2014**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District
    Judge.***
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
    District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    Gail Schneyer appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of
    the Commissioner of Social Security that the Government Pension Offset (“GPO”)
    provision of the Social Security Act, 
    42 U.S.C. § 402
    (k)(5)(A), applied to
    Schneyer’s spousal benefits under 
    42 U.S.C. § 402
    (b), and thereby reduced her
    monthly benefit payment to zero. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    We review the decision of the district court de novo, Edlund v. Massanari, 
    253 F.3d 1152
    , 1156 (9th Cir. 2001), and the district court must affirm an
    administrative agency’s factual conclusions so long as they are supported by
    substantial evidence, but reviews decisions of law de novo, Robbins v. Soc. Sec.
    Admin., 
    466 F.3d 880
    , 882 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
    The GPO provides that spousal benefits “shall be reduced (but not below
    zero) by an amount equal to two-thirds of the amount of any monthly periodic
    benefit payable to such individual for such month which is based upon such
    individual's earnings while in the service of . . . any State.” 
    42 U.S.C. § 402
    (k)(5)(A). Schneyer receives a pension from the California State Teacher’s
    Retirement System (CalSTRS), which was originally based on her earnings during
    her employment with the Alhambra School District until her retirement in 1995. In
    2000, the California Legislature created the Minimum Guarantee Monthly
    Allowance (“MGMA”), 
    Cal. Educ. Code § 24410.5
    , which established a minimum
    -2-
    pension for retired state educators, with the amount of the pension calculated based
    on an employee’s length of service, regardless of salary. The passage of the
    MGMA increased Schneyer’s monthly pension by approximately $95.
    Schneyer argues 1) that the GPO applies only to pensions that are calculated
    with reference to the amount of earnings an employee received while employed, 2)
    that the MGMA is not calculated based on earnings, and 3) that because the
    MGMA is higher than her previous earnings-based CalSTRS pension, the MGMA
    replaced CalSTRS and made her eligible to receive spousal benefits without the
    GPO. Assuming, arguendo, that her first two arguments are correct, we
    nonetheless affirm the decision of the district court.1 The MGMA is not a stand-
    alone pension, but an amendment to the existing CalSTRS pension regime. The
    statutory provision that established the MGMA is but one chapter in a lengthy and
    interconnected set of statutory provisions that set out the CalSTRS retirement
    program. See 
    Cal. Educ. Code §§ 22000-25115
     (T. 1, D. 1., Pt. 13, “State
    Teacher’s Retirement System”). CalSTRS informed its members of the MGMA
    1
    The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) contests both of the legal
    theories offered by Schneyer. It argues that the GPO applies to all government
    pensions, whether earnings- or service-based, and that even if the GPO applies
    only to earnings-based pensions, the MGMA is in fact earnings based because it
    calculates length of service based upon years of employment, which necessarily
    entails at least some level of earnings. We need not reach these questions of
    statutory interpretation, and will not do so here.
    -3-
    program by repeatedly defining it not as a new or independent program, but as an
    “increase” to the existing benefits package. For these reasons, the earnings-based
    nature of the overall CalSTRS pension is not affected by the addition of a single
    element that turns on length of service.
    Schneyer raises two other claims, both of which we reject. First, she argues
    that the SSA is equitably estopped from opposing her suit because in a public
    document, it restated the language of 
    42 U.S.C. § 402
    (k)(5)(A), noting that spousal
    benefits would not be reduced if an otherwise eligible person is “receiving a
    government pension that is not based on [that person’s] earnings.” SSA
    Publication No. 05-10007. However, “[a] private party seeking estoppel against
    the government must establish that: (1) affirmative misconduct going beyond mere
    negligence has occurred; (2) the government's wrongful act will cause a serious
    injustice; and (3) the public’s interest will not suffer undue damage by imposition
    of the liability.” Weinfield v. United States, 
    8 F.3d 1415
    , 1419 (9th Cir. 1993)
    (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Schneyer cannot show that any
    misconduct or injustice has occurred based on the SSA’s accurate restatement of
    the statute, and we decline to reverse the decision of the district court on this
    ground.
    -4-
    Second, Schneyer requests an order that compels the SSA to release any
    documents considered during the administrative review process that were not
    included in the administrative record, and argues that the SSA’s prior failure to do
    so violated her due process rights. 
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g) requires the SSA to file an
    administrative record with the district court, which it did. Schneyer cites no
    authority for further disclosure, and we decline to enter the order she requests.
    AFFIRMED.
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-56617

Judges: Gould, Smith, Korman

Filed Date: 6/11/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024