Beeler v. Saul

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs' (dual citizens of U.S. and Canada) action, alleging that defendants wrongfully applied “windfall elimination” provision to decrease their Social Security benefits due to fact that plaintiffs received old-age benefits from Canadian Pension Plan for work plaintiffs performed in Canada that was not subject to U.S. Social Security taxes. Dist. Ct. could properly reject plaintiffs’ argument that totalization agreement between U.S. and Canada designated paid work in either country as “covered employment” or equivalent to covered employment in both countries. Moreover, defendants could properly find that term “covered employment” is work on which Social Security taxes were paid. As such, since plaintiff’s work in Canada is not considered covered employment under 42 USC section 410, provisions of 42 USC section 415 applied to reduce plaintiff’s U.S. Social Security benefit. Ct. rejected plaintiffs’ contention that instant reduction in benefits is improper because: (1) it violated totalization agreement since Canada does not reciprocally reduce plaintiffs’ Canadian benefits due to their receipt of U.S. Social Security benefits; and (2) Canadians' benefits are based on Canadian citizenship or residence. (Dissent filed.)