Retirement payments under the Social Security Act; The “misinformation provision” (42 USC § 402(j)(5)); Claim that the early retiring plaintiff was entitled to the higher monthly benefit to which she would have been entitled had she retired at full retirement age; Distinguishing Costello v Astrue (7th Cir); Social Security Administration (SSA); Administrative law judge (ALJ)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that plaintiff-Linden, who retired at 62, was not entitled to rely on the Social Security Act’s “misinformation provision,” § 402(j)(5), to have her payments increased to the amount she would have received if she had reached her full retirement age, 66. Linden asserted that she “thought that if she applied at 62, her birth date and her husband’s independent decision to defer his own Social Security would exempt her from the general rule that an early application yields smaller checks.” She claimed that an SSA representative told her that she would not receive smaller checks if she retired early. She argued that the alleged misrepresentation entitled her to have the SSA increase her payments to the amount she would have received if she had filed at her full retirement age. It declined to do so, and the ALJ affirmed. At issue was § 402(j)(5), which provides that an individual may “recover benefits if they ‘fail’ to apply based on misinformation from an agency.” Since Linden had applied, the ALJ concluded that the statute did not cover her claim. A magistrate judge agreed. The court affirmed, holding that § 402(j)(5) “applies when a beneficiary received incorrect information that caused them not to file an application. Linden did file an application at the time she received the alleged misinformation.” The court rejected her argument that “‘the misinformation caused her to “fail[]” to timely apply for benefits at age 66.’” Among other things, it noted that she “did timely apply for benefits when she turned 62” and that her interpretation added “the word ‘timely’ into a statute that only discusses whether one ‘failed to file’ at all.” It further found that the one case on which she relied, Costello, was distinguishable factually and legally. The Program Operations Manual System also did not help her. Its use of “the word ‘timely’ simply suggests that the application is submitted by a deadline. That’s precisely what Linden did. What’s more, even if the Manual did help Linden, it wouldn’t be able to override the plain text of a statute or regulation.”