## Facts

- Lois B. Pierce, proceeding pro se, sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision applying the government pension offset (GPO) and eliminating her Title II spousal insurance benefits.
- Pierce worked for the Social Security Administration beginning in 1961 and ultimately served as an operations supervisor.
- On September 20, 1982, Pierce took leave without pay due to stress and mental-health conditions, and she remained away from work.
- In May 1983, Pierce applied to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for disability retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
- OPM initially denied the CSRS disability application for insufficient medical evidence.
- Pierce sought reconsideration and submitted additional medical records indicating a psychiatric condition that impaired her ability to perform her job duties.
- OPM granted the application on reconsideration and determined Pierce was eligible for CSRS disability retirement benefits as of April 1984.
- In April 2003, Pierce applied for Social Security spousal benefits based on her husband’s earnings record, and the Social Security Administration initially paid benefits beginning that month.
- In January 2005, the agency informed Pierce that her spousal benefits had been overpaid because the agency failed to apply the GPO, which reduced her spousal benefit to zero due to her CSRS disability pension (a government pension based on noncovered employment).
- Pierce requested administrative review, arguing that she should be treated as eligible for her CSRS pension before July 1983 and that, if so, an exception would prevent application of the offset.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the GPO and found Pierce did not prove she qualified for an exception; at the hearing, Pierce did not submit additional medical evidence supporting an earlier eligibility date.
- The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision, and Pierce appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s determination that Pierce’s CSRS disability pension triggered the government pension offset that reduced her Title II spousal benefits to zero.
2. Whether Pierce proved she qualified for any statutory or regulatory exception to the government pension offset, including an exception tied to eligibility timing (as Pierce claimed, prior to July 1983) and dependency-based requirements.

## Decision

- The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision.
- The court held that Pierce’s CSRS disability retirement benefits were a government pension based on noncovered employment and therefore required application of the government pension offset to her spousal benefits under the Social Security Act and implementing regulations.
- The court upheld the finding that Pierce failed to establish any exception to the offset, including her claim that she was eligible for the CSRS pension before July 1983 despite OPM’s determination of eligibility beginning in April 1984.
- The court rejected Pierce’s fairness-based arguments, explaining that judicial review under § 405(g) is limited to legal error and substantial-evidence review, not re-awarding benefits on equitable grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a reviewing court asks whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the final decision is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 402(k)(5)(A) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.408a(a), Social Security spouse (and surviving spouse) benefits are reduced when the beneficiary receives a government pension based on the beneficiary’s own employment that was not subject to Social Security coverage; the reduction can eliminate the spouse benefit entirely.
- The claimant bears the burden to prove qualification for an exception to the government pension offset, including any timing-based or dependency-based exception recognized by statute or regulation.
- Courts reviewing Social Security benefit determinations may not reweigh the record evidence or substitute their judgment for the agency’s factfinding; if substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings, the court must affirm even if the outcome is harsh.

## Conclusion

Pierce v. Commissioner affirmed the denial of unreduced spousal insurance benefits because Pierce’s CSRS disability pension qualified as a government pension from noncovered employment, requiring a government pension offset that reduced her spousal benefit to zero, and Pierce did not prove she met any exception that would prevent the offset.


Pierce v. Commissioner, 651 F. Supp. 2d 211 (2009)