Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond

Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond

Case name and citation

Case name: Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond

Case citation: No.88-1943. Supreme Court of the United States 496 U.S. 414, Argued Feb.

21, 1990. Decided June 11, 1990

Background

The case is based on the concerns of that directly relates to the issue of estoppel of the Government. That happened due to the reason regarding misinformation that resulted in the claimant's disqualification in order to disable the entitlements.

Key Facts

In this particular case, Mr. Charles Richmond is the claimant. He stated the information provided to him was less than credible information that was provided by the Office of Personnel Management on the subject of his capacity of earning for the following years. According to the U.S.C Section 8337 (d), should be lesser than 80% of the previous capacity of earning for the claimant.

Prior to 1982,Section 8337 (d) it is quoted the disqualification of benefits claimant for the consequent benefits payments provided that:

“In each of 2 succeeding calendar years the income of the annuitant from wages or self-employment…equals at least 80% of the current rate of pay of the position occupied immediately before retirement.”

There was an amendment in the provision by the year of 1982 for the disqualification of the benefits provided that the earning will surpass in ANY GIVEN calendar year. The case was based on the statement that the Office of Personnel Management, was responsible for misleading behaviors that resulted in the ill-information regarding the changes that occurred in the provision. The correct information was not communicated to the claimant that refer to the quantity of the earning he had a right to claim preceding the disqualification. Due to the fact, the claimant was capable of earning above the 80% threshold that resulted in the disqualification of the benefits for six years for calculated amount of $3993.00.

The claimant further proceeded by persuading the concern within a panel of Court of Appeals. Then the Court of Appeals came to the conclusion by overturning the MSBP finding and stated that:

“Misinformation from Navy personnel estopped the Government, and that estoppels required payment of disability benefits despite the statutory provision to the contrary.”

Legal Issues Presented Before Court And Holding Of The Court

The basic legal issue that was addressed in this case was to identify whether it the fault of the Government agent or Agency or not, regarding the misapplication of Government provision that provision entitles a claim of estoppel of government, in favor of a claimant.

In this case the allegation was on the government agent that the he has provided misinformation that resulted in the disqualification of claimant benefits does the claimant have the right to benefits?

There comes the question of authority that has been granted to the agent of the government for the provision of the represented on the behalf of the government. It has been concluded through the previous cases that:

“The Government cannot be bound of an agent unless it ...