Three cases involving the Railroad Retirement Board were resolved by the courts during fiscal year 2006, and several significant legal opinions were issued.

Court Cases

Four cases of various types involving petitions for review of decisions of the Railroad Retirement Board were pending in the courts at the beginning of fiscal year 2006, and seven cases were opened during the fiscal year. Three cases were resolved during fiscal year 2006. Eight cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year. The following describes the cases of most significance to railroad employers and employees.

On May 31, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision affirming the decision of the Board in the case of Stockman v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. The petitioner filed for review of the Board’s decision that the agency had jurisdiction of the survivor benefits payable on the earnings of the railroad employee and that the widow’s annuity paid was computed correctly. The petitioner contended that the employee had broken his current connection with the railroad industry and therefore the Board did not have jurisdiction of survivor benefits. The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision that survivor benefits were payable under the Railroad Retirement Act and affirmed the decision of the Board.

On October 23, 2006, in a published opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board in the case of Reter v. Railroad Retirement Board. This was an appeal from the denial of a total and permanent disability application. The court found that there was substantial evidence in the record for the Board’s conclusion that the railroad employee could perform his past relevant work, and that, therefore, under Board regulations, the sequential disability evaluation process warranted a determination of not disabled. The Court also commented on the fact that the employee did not meet his burden of showing that he had any additional listed impairment or medically equivalent listed impairment other than that which the Board had already found.

Legal Opinions

The following Legal Opinions are presented here because of their special significance or interest.

Legal Opinion L-2006-2 concerned whether payment by a railroad union of membership dues owed to the union by a Secretary-Treasurer of a local lodge would constitute creditable compensation from a covered labor organization. The General Counsel analogized the situation presented to the treatment of dues payment under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, and ruled that payment of the dues would not constitute creditable compensation because it represented payment of an employee expense.

Legal Opinion L-2006-10 addressed the question of whether the Board may use the Social Security Administration’s Master Beneficiary Record (MBR) database in order to prove age. The MBR shows the date of birth of a social security beneficiary and the type of proof used to establish the date of birth.

Section 219.6(c) of the Board’s regulations provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Certified copies of original records. The Board will accept copies of original records or extracts from records if they are certified as true and exact copies of the original by--

* * * * *

(3) A Social Security Administration employee, if the evidence was given to that agency to obtain social security benefits* * *.

The General Counsel advised that the intent of the Board’s regulations is that a Board examiner be entitled to rely on information obtained by the Social Security Administration, and that, although it would appear from the wording of the regulation that it was contemplated that such information would take the form of paper copies of records with a certification attached or imprinted, the recording of the information in a Social Security Administration database would seem to constitute the equivalent both of a certification of that information and of “extracts of records.” Accordingly, the General Counsel ruled that it is permissible for the Board to establish the age of an applicant or beneficiary by reference to the MBR.

Legal Opinion L-2006-14 addressed the question of whether the agency may pay interest on retroactive benefit payments.

The General Counsel advised that, as payments by a Federal agency, railroad retirement annuities are consequently subject to a long-standing rule of law, which holds that in the absence of a contractual or statutory provision specifically authorizing payment of interest, no interest is payable on a claim against the United States. The source of the rule is not a specific statute, but rather a principle set forth in court decisions which apply broadly to the Federal Government.

The question arose following a decision by a hearings officer of the Board’s Bureau of Hearings and Appeals that a widow applicant was entitled to an earlier annuity beginning date on grounds that she had been deterred from filing an annuity application at an earlier date. The General Counsel advised that, while regulations of the Board permit an applicant to establish an earlier application filing date under certain specified criteria, no regulation of the Board or provision of the Railroad Retirement Act authorizes payment of interest on any retroactive payment due by operation of those regulations. Accordingly, no interest may be paid as a result of the decision of the hearings officer.
 

Appeals

Any claimant for benefits under the Railroad Retirement or Railroad Unemploy-ment Insurance Acts may appeal a determination he or she feels is not justified. This appeal must be filed within certain time frames. Appeals are heard and decided by the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. An appellant who is dissatisfied with the decision on his or her appeal may further appeal the case to the three-member Board within a prescribed period of time.

Railroad Retirement Act

During fiscal year 2006, 508 appeals were filed with the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals under the Railroad Retirement Act, and the Bureau rendered decisions in 629 appeals, including some carried over from the previous year. The initial or reconsideration decision was sustained in 157 cases. In 472 appeals the decision was favorable to the claimant in whole or in part.

Eighty-one appeals were filed with the Board in fiscal year 2006, which, added to the 29 appeals carried over from the previous year, brought the total to be considered to 110. Of 71 decisions, 64 sustained previous rulings of the hearings officer, one was reversed, two were remanded to the Office of Programs, two were remanded to the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, and two were dismissed. At the end of the year, 39 appeals were pending before the Board.

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act

During fiscal year 2006, 47 appeals were filed with the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Bureau rendered decisions in 48 appeals, including some carried over from the previous year. The initial or reconsideration decision was sustained in 34 cases. In 14 appeals the decision was favorable to the claimant in whole or in part.

Seven appeals were filed with the Board in fiscal year 2006, which, added to the six carried over from the previous year, brought the total to be considered to 13. The Board rendered decisions in eight cases of appeals from the decision of the referee, affirming the decision in six cases, reversing one, and remanding one to the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. At the end of the year, five appeals were pending before the Board.