442 U.S. 682 (1979), 77-1511, Califano v. Yamasaki

Docket NºNo. 77-1511
Citation442 U.S. 682, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176
Party NameCalifano v. Yamasaki
Case DateJune 20, 1979
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 682

442 U.S. 682 (1979)

99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176

Califano

v.

Yamasaki

No. 77-1511

United States Supreme Court

June 20, 1979

Argued March 19, 1979

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Section 204(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (Act) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to recoup erroneous overpayments made to a beneficiary under the old-age, survivors', or disability insurance programs by decreasing future payments to which the overpaid person is entitled. However, § 204(b) commands that

there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery by the United States from, any person who is without fault if such adjustment would defeat the purpose of this subchapter or would be against equity and good conscience.

Under the Secretary's practice, after an ex parte determination is made under § 204(a) that an overpayment has been made, and after the recipient is notified of that determination, the recipient may file a written request seeking reconsideration of the determination or asking the Secretary to waive recovery in accordance with § 204(b). If, upon review of the papers, the decision goes against the recipient, recoupment begins, and the recipient is given an opportunity for an oral hearing only if he thereafter continues to object to recoupment. The recipient may seek subsequent administrative review, and finally may seek review by a federal court under § 205(g) of the Act, which provides that any person, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, may obtain review of the decision by instituting a civil action. Respondents, who had unsuccessfully sought administrative relief from recoupment determinations, instituted federal actions, alleging that, because they had not been given adequate notice and an opportunity for an oral hearing before recoupment began, the recoupment procedures violated both § 204 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In each action, class certification was sought, and, in one action, it was requested that the class be nationwide. The respective District Courts granted class certification, held that the Secretary's recoupment procedures were unconstitutional, and ordered injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases on appeal and upheld the certification of the classes. On the merits, the court, without directly addressing respondents' statutory claims, held, inter alia, that, when waiver of recoupment

Page 683

was requested pursuant to § 204(b), the Due Process Clause required that the recipient be given an oral hearing before recoupment began, but that a prior hearing was not required in § 204(a) reconsideration cases if the dispute centered on a computational error or a payment problem not demanding an evaluation of credibility.

Held:

1. Recipients who file a written request for waiver under § 204(b) are entitled to the opportunity for a pre-recoupment oral hearing, but those who merely request reconsideration under § 204(a) are not so entitled. Pp. 692-697.

(a) On its face, § 204 requires that the Secretary make a pre-recoupment waiver decision, and that the decision, like that concerning the fact of the overpayment, be accurate. Pp. 693-695.

(b) Neither § 204 nor the standards of the Due Process Clause require pre-recoupment oral hearings as to requests under § 204(a) for reconsideration as to whether overpayment occurred. The rare instance in which a credibility dispute is relevant to a § 204(a) claim is not sufficient to require the Secretary to grant a hearing to the few requests that involve credibility. However, with respect to § 204(b) waiver of the Secretary's right to recoup, the nature of the statutory standards involving determinations of "fault" and whether recoupment would be "against equity and good conscience" makes a pre-recoupment oral hearing essential when a recipient requests waiver. Pp. 695-697.

2. Nothing in § 205(g) prohibits the pre-recoupment hearing relief awarded in this case. Pp. 697-706.

(a) Where a district court has jurisdiction over the claims of the members of the class in accordance with the requirements set out in § 205(g), it also has discretion under Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23 to certify a class action for the litigation of those claims. Pp. 698-701.

(b) There was no abuse of discretion in certifying a nationwide class. Pp. 701-703.

(c) [99 S.Ct. 2549] While the classes certified here exceed the bounds permitted by § 205(g)'s "final decision" requirement because they include persons who have not filed requests for reconsideration or waiver in the past and will not do so in the future, nevertheless there is no basis for altering the relief actually granted, as it did not include those who do not meet such requirement. Pp. 703-704.

(d) Injunctive relief may be awarded in a § 205(g) proceeding, nothing in either the language or the legislative history of the statute indicating that Congress intended to preclude injunctive relief. Pp. 704-706.

564 F.2d 1219, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Page 684

BLACKMUN, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), has determined that respondents, beneficiaries under the Social Security Act, have been overpaid. He seeks to recoup those overpayments by withholding future benefits to which respondents would otherwise be entitled. Respondents, in turn, have requested reconsideration or waiver of recoupment under § 204 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 404. The primary questions in this case are whether petitioner must grant respondents the opportunity for an oral hearing before recoupment begins, and whether jurisdiction under § 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), permits a federal district court to certify a nationwide class and grant injunctive relief.

I

Section 204(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, 53 Stat. 1368, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 404(a)(1) , authorizes the recovery of overpayments made to a beneficiary under the old-age, survivors', or disability insurance programs administered by HEW. In particular, it permits the Secretary to recoup

Page 685

erroneous overpayments by decreasing future payments to which the overpaid person is entitled.

Section 204(b), however, expressly limits the recoupment authority conferred by § 204(a)(1). Section 204(b), as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 404(b), commands that

there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery by the United States from, any person who is without fault if such adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose of this subchapter or would be against equity and good conscience.1

The Secretary has undertaken to define the terms employed in § 204(b). Under his regulations, "without fault" means that the recipient neither knew nor should have known that the overpayment or the information on which it was based was incorrect. [99 S.Ct. 2550] 20 CFR § 404.507 (1978). For example, a recipient who justifiably relied upon erroneous information from

Page 686

an official source within the Social Security Administration would be "without fault." § 404.510.

The regulations say that to "defeat the purpose of the subchapter" is to "deprive a person of income required for ordinary and necessary living expenses." § 404.508(a). Those expenses are defined to include, among other things, food, rent, and medical bills. §§ 404.508(a)(1) and (2). Recoupment is "against equity and good conscience" when the recipient,

because of a notice that such payment would be made or by reason of the incorrect payment, relinquished a valuable right . . . or changed his position for the worse.

§ 404.509. An example of detrimental reliance that would be sufficient is permitting private hospital insurance to lapse in the mistaken expectation of receiving federal hospital benefits. Ibid.

The Secretary's practice is to make an ex parte determination under § 204(a) that an overpayment has been made, to notify the recipient of that determination, and then to shift to the recipient the burden of either (i) seeking reconsideration to contest the accuracy of that determination, or (ii) asking the Secretary to forgive the debt and waive recovery in accordance with § 204(b).2 If a recipient files a written request for reconsideration or waiver, recoupment is deferred pending action on that request. Social Security Claims Manual §§ 5503.2(c), 5503.4(b) (Dec.1978) (Claims Manual). The papers are sent to one of the seven regional offices where the request is reviewed.

If the regional office decision goes against the recipient, recoupment begins. The recipient's monthly benefits are reduced or terminated3 until the overpayment has been recouped.

Page 687

Only if the recipient continues to object is he given an opportunity to present his story in person to someone with authority to decide his case. That opportunity takes the form of an on-the-record de novo evidential hearing before an independent hearing examiner. 20 CFR §§ 404.917, 404.931 (1978). The recipient may seek subsequent review by the Appeals Council, § 404.945, and finally by a federal court. § 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). If it is decided that the Secretary's initial determination was in error, the amounts wrongfully recouped are repaid.

II4

The Elliott Case

The Secretary overpaid the Hawaii respondents,5 and notified them of his determination to recoup the overpayments. After [99 S.Ct. 2551] unsuccessful attempts to obtain administrative relief, they brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii challenging the legality of the Secretary's recoupment procedures. They alleged that, because the

Page 688

notice they received was inadequate and because they were not given an opportunity for an oral hearing before recoupment began, the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
1640 practice notes
  • Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation To Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 19, 2016
    • December 19, 2016
    .... from permitting several courts of appeals to explore a difficult question before this Court grants certiorari''); Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (``It often will be preferable to allow several courts to pass on a given class claim in order to gain the benefit of adjudicati......
  • 104 B.R. 626 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), 88 Civ. 6456, In re Chateaugay Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit Southern District of New York
    • September 6, 1989
    ...question whether filing of proofs of claim on behalf of a class is permissible, the analysis of the Supreme Court in Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) provides the rule of decision. In Yamasaki the Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Secur......
  • 151 F.R.D. 664 (D.Kan. 1993), 92-4297-SAC, Stambaugh v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 10th Circuit District of Kansas
    • October 8, 1993
    ...Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 2369, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 2557, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979)). They also " reduce the threat of repetitive litigation, ... prevent inconsistent resolu......
  • 199 F.R.D. 578 (W.D.Mich. 2001), 1:00CV695, Rockey v. Courtesy Motors, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 6th Circuit Western District of Michigan
    • March 13, 2001
    ...2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). District courts have broad discretion in certifying and managing class actions. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 703, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979); Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 716 (6th Cir.2000); Weaver v. University of Cincinnati, 970 F.......
  • Free signup to view additional results
1514 cases
  • 104 B.R. 626 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), 88 Civ. 6456, In re Chateaugay Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit Southern District of New York
    • September 6, 1989
    ...question whether filing of proofs of claim on behalf of a class is permissible, the analysis of the Supreme Court in Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) provides the rule of decision. In Yamasaki the Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Secur......
  • 151 F.R.D. 664 (D.Kan. 1993), 92-4297-SAC, Stambaugh v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 10th Circuit District of Kansas
    • October 8, 1993
    ...Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 2369, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 2557, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979)). They also " reduce the threat of repetitive litigation, ... prevent inconsistent resolu......
  • 199 F.R.D. 578 (W.D.Mich. 2001), 1:00CV695, Rockey v. Courtesy Motors, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 6th Circuit Western District of Michigan
    • March 13, 2001
    ...2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). District courts have broad discretion in certifying and managing class actions. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 703, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979); Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 716 (6th Cir.2000); Weaver v. University of Cincinnati, 970 F.......
  • 242 F.R.D. 615 (D.N.M. 2007), Civ. 05-659 MV/RHS, Mulford v. Altria Group, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 10th Circuit District of New Mexico
    • March 22, 2007
    ...to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-701, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979). Class relief is " peculiarly appropriate" when the " issues involved are common to th......
  • Free signup to view additional results
13 firm's commentaries
  • Dukes V. Wal-Mart: Some Closed Doors And Open Issues - Part 2
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 14, 2012
    ...applies" in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts (emphasis in original); Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700 (1979) ("In the absence of a direct expression by congress of its intent to depart from the usual course of trying 'all suits of a civ......
  • The Littler Report: DUKES v. WAL-MART: Some Closed Doors and Open Issues
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • February 14, 2012
    ...applies” in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts (emphasis in original); Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700 (1979) (“In the absence of a direct expression by congress of its intent to depart from the usual course of trying ‘all suits of a civil nature’......
  • Is “Class Arbitration” an Oxymoron?
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • April 17, 2017
    ...an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.’ Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979).” American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 (2013). And, as the law of the land, all litigants ......
  • Class Certification Issues in Coronavirus-Related Commercial Property Insurance Litigation
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • April 10, 2020
    ...Insurance, No. 1:20-cv-02068 (E.D. Ill.), filed Mar. 31, 2020 (hereinafter “Billy Goat Complaint”). [2] Id. [3] Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 701 (1979). [4] General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155 (1982) (citing Yamasaki, 442 U.S. at 701). [5] Id. [6] See, e.g., Messner v.......
  • Free signup to view additional results
28 books & journal articles
  • NATIONAL INJUNCTIONS AND PRECLUSION.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Nbr. 2019, October 2019
    • October 1, 2019
    ...(226.) See Supplemental Brief for Appellant, supra note 35, at 21-23; see also office of the Attorney Gen., supra note 35, at 4. (227.) 442 U.S. 682, 702-03 (1979) ("It often will be preferable to allow several courts to pass on a given class claim in order to gain the benefit of adjud......
  • Discretion in class certification.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 162 Nbr. 7, June - June 2014
    • June 1, 2014
    ..."in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 699-700 (1979). (252) Although the Court's language here is broad and its emphatic tone typographically unmistakable, its holding addresses ......
  • Giving sabers to a 'toothless tiger': the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 26 Nbr. 1, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...Remedies [sections] 2.9(2), at 166 (abr. 2d ed. 1993). (63) Id. (64) 503 U.S. 60 (1992). (65) Id. at 70-71; accord Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 705 (1978) ("Absent the clearest command to the contrary from Congress, federal courts retain their equitable power to issue injunction......
  • Due process forgotten: the problem of statutory damages and class actions.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 74 Nbr. 1, January 2009
    • January 1, 2009
    ...18, at 631 (arguing that statutory damages amounts are "unhelpful" where the legislature has not considered aggregation). (264.) 442 U.S. 682 (265.) Id. at 700. (266.) Id. (267.) Saunders v. Louise's Trattoria, No. CV 07-1060 SJO (PJWx), 2007 WL 4812287, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, ......
  • Free signup to view additional results
85 provisions