John R. Casey v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL , Acting Commissioner of Social Secu- rity,

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 15‐2810
J OHN R. C ASEY,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL , Acting Commissioner of Social Secu‐
rity,
Defendant‐Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.
No. 2:13‐cv‐00328‐RL‐JEM — Rudy Lozano, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 — D ECIDED J ANUARY 30, 2017
____________________
Before BAUER , R OVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
HAMILTON , Circuit Judge. In 2009, the Social Security Ad‐
ministration notified Plaintiff John Casey that he needed to
repay about $334,000 in disability benefits he should not have
 Nancy A. Berryhill was substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin, as Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, on January 27, 2017. See Fed. R. App. P.
43(c)(2).

-- 1 of 16 --

2 No. 15‐2810
received. Casey sought a waiver, but an administrative law
judge denied his request. Six months later, Casey submitted
an untimely request to the Appeals Council seeking review of
the ALJ’s decision. Casey argued that he had good cause for
his delay. The Appeals Council seemed to agree. On April 12,
2012, the Council extended Casey’s deadline to submit evi‐
dence or a statement in support of his waiver claim. But on
July 17, 2013, the Appeals Council reversed course, informing
Casey that it had dismissed his request for review because
there was “no good cause to extend the time for filing.” Casey
then sued the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in dis‐
trict court. The Commissioner moved to dismiss, and a mag‐
istrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s mo‐
tion. The district judge adopted the magistrate’s recommen‐
dation and dismissed the case.
The district court erred. The action by the Appeals Council
in first granting and then retroactively denying Casey’s good
cause request was arbitrary, having the effect of an unfair bu‐
reaucratic bait‐and‐switch. To be sure, the Council had discre‐
tion to determine initially whether Casey offered good cause
for his late administrative appeal. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.968(b),
404.911. But having granted Casey’s request, the Council
could not simply change its mind and dismiss Casey’s appeal
on the theory that he had not adequately justified his delay,
after leading him on for over a year without suggesting he
needed to provide more information, an affidavit, or anything
else by way of support. We reverse the judgment of the district
court and remand with instructions to remand this matter to
the agency for administrative proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

-- 2 of 16 --

No. 15‐2810 3
I. Procedural History
We recount the salient facts, which are drawn from the ad‐
ministrative record and from Casey’s complaint. We take Ca‐
sey’s allegations as true in reviewing the district court’s judg‐
ment of dismissal. In 1979, Casey began receiving Social Se‐
curity disability insurance benefits. Two years later, he en‐
tered the federal Witness Protection Program. According to
Casey, the United States Marshals Service initially informed
him that he could not simultaneously receive both his witness
protection stipend and his disability benefits. Later, however,
an agent of the Marshals Service allegedly told Casey that he
could receive both income streams and that, as remuneration
for cooperating with the government, he would continue to
receive disability benefits throughout his natural life. He ap‐
parently received both streams of income for some time; he
later received disability benefits while simultaneously earn‐
ing income.
In 2009, the Social Security Administration notified Casey
that, in light of his earnings history, he had been overpaid
$333,893.90 in disability benefits. Casey did not seek timely
reconsideration of that determination, which became final
sixty days after he received the notice. See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.909(a), 404.905. Instead, in either February or August
2010 (the record is unclear), Casey requested a waiver of the
overpayment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 404(b)(1), which pro‐
vides: “In any case in which more than the correct amount of
payment has been made, there shall be no … recov‐
ery … from[] any person who is without fault if such … re‐
covery would defeat the purpose of [the Social Security Act]
or would be against equity and good conscience.” See also 20

-- 3 of 16 --

4 No. 15‐2810
C.F.R. § 404.506 (describing process for submitting waiver re‐
quest).
The Social Security Administration denied Casey’s waiver
request in November 2010. After an evidentiary hearing, an
administrative law judge upheld that denial in an August 25,
2011 decision. Though Casey had argued that he was entitled
to rely on the Marshals Service’s assurance that he would re‐
ceive disability benefits for life, the ALJ disagreed, finding
that there was “no proof” to substantiate the alleged promise
and that, in any event, Casey had “many opportunities and
incentive [sic] to contact the Social Security Administration to
inquiry [sic] into his receipt of [disability] benefits.” The ALJ
also cited Casey’s “ability to repay the overpayment” as a
“significant issue.” (The ALJ had calculated Casey’s gross
monthly income at over $15,000 and had noted that Casey and
his wife owned real property with a net value of almost
$600,000.)
After receiving notice of the ALJ’s August 25, 2011 adverse
decision, Casey had sixty days to seek further review by the
Appeals Council. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.968(a). He did not submit
a timely request for review. However, in a March 2, 2012 letter,
Casey’s attorney at the time, Arman Sarkisian, invoked the
good cause exception for untimely requests. See §§ 404.968(b),
404.911, 404.900(b). Sarkisian advised the Appeals Council
that neither he nor his firm had received a copy of the ALJ’s
decision and that he had learned of the decision only after
contacting the ALJ’s chambers “several months” after the de‐
cision issued. Sarkisian asked the Council to (1) find that Ca‐
sey had good cause for a late filing, (2) grant Casey additional
time to secure information, and (3) evaluate the appeal as if it
had been timely.

-- 4 of 16 --

No. 15‐2810 5
In an April 12, 2012 letter, the Appeals Council informed
Sarkisian that it had “granted your request for more time” be‐
fore acting on Casey’s case, and it invited him to submit evi‐
dence or legal argument within twenty‐five days, with the ca‐
veat that “[a]ny more evidence must be new and material to
the issues considered in the hearing decision dated August 25,
2011.” Sarkisian requested additional extensions on April 24,
2012 and May 22, 2012, both of which were granted. Sarkisian
requested a further extension on June 25, 2012: this time, the
agency denied his request, informing him that it would pro‐
ceed with its action based on the existing record.
On July 17, 2013, the Appeals Council dismissed Casey’s
request for review. The Appeals Council did not, however, ad‐
dress the merits of Casey’s request for reconsideration. In‐
stead, in its order, the Council characterized Casey’s prior cor‐
respondence as requesting additional time to “complete a
‘good cause’ statement and to provide the Administration
with additional evidence regarding his late filing.” “To date,”
the Council wrote, “it does not appear that [Casey] has pro‐
vided the ‘good cause’ statement he indicated would be forth‐
coming.” The Council concluded there was “no good cause to
extend the time for filing.”
Casey then brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a statute
authorizing judicial review of any “final decision” by the
Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner moved
to dismiss on the theory that Casey had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. According to the Commissioner, al‐
though the Appeals Council afforded Casey “an opportunity
to show good cause for his untimely request for review,” he
failed to do so. The Commissioner contended that because Ca‐

-- 5 of 16 --

6 No. 15‐2810
sey “did not comply with the agency’s deadlines and proce‐
dural rules, and thus failed to properly exhaust his adminis‐
trative remedies,” the district court had “no authority under
section 405(g) to review the Commissioner’s decision.” In op‐
position, Casey pointed out that (1) the Appeals Council had
granted his good cause request in its April 12, 2012 letter and
(2) the Council’s dismissal order actually advised him of his
right to seek judicial review. Nevertheless, the magistrate
judge recommended that the district court dismiss Casey’s
complaint. Citing our decision in Boley v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 803
(7th Cir. 2014), the magistrate judge recognized that the dis‐
trict court had jurisdiction to review the Appeals Council’s
dismissal order. However, because Casey’s complaint focused
on the merits of his waiver claim rather than the timeliness of
the claim, the judge concluded that Casey did “not seek re‐
view of the Appeals Council’s good cause determination.”
Adopting the recommendation over Casey’s objections,
the district judge wrote that the “only reviewable decision”
was the agency’s July 17, 2013 dismissal for failure to demon‐
strate good cause, and “Casey’s complaint cannot fairly be
read as seeking review of this decision.” The district judge
dismissed the suit, and Casey filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291.
II. Analysis
A. The Dismissal Order
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a Social Security claimant may
obtain judicial review of any “final decision” of the agency by
suing the Commissioner in a federal district court within sixty
days following notice of the agency’s decision. The court has

-- 6 of 16 --

No. 15‐2810 7
the power to “enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the
record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing” the
agency’s decision. Id. We review de novo the district court’s
judgment. See Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093, 1097–98 (7th Cir.
2013); Hickman v. Apfel, 187 F.3d 683, 687 (7th Cir. 1999). We
likewise review de novo the agency’s legal conclusions, though
we review its factual findings deferentially, upholding the
findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. See
Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 695 (7th Cir. 2014); Jones v.
Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th Cir. 2010).
This case presents an unusual twist, however, because the
Appeals Council did not decide the merits of Casey’s waiver
claim. Instead, the Council’s “final decision” was its dismissal
of Casey’s request for review based on its purported finding
that Casey lacked good cause for his delay. As we recognized
in Boley, the agency’s good cause determination is itself a re‐
viewable decision. See 761 F.3d at 808 (remanding to district
court to “decide whether substantial evidence, and appropri‐
ate procedures,” supported decision that claimant lacked
“good cause” for delay in seeking intra‐agency review). The
district court acknowledged Boley, but it read Casey’s com‐
plaint as focusing on the merits rather than the timeliness of
his waiver claim. In the district court’s view, Casey’s “failure
to seek review of the determination that good cause is lack‐
ing” tied the court’s hands. On appeal, the Commissioner con‐
cedes that the district court had jurisdiction to review the Ap‐
peals Council’s dismissal order. But the Commissioner echoes
the district court’s analysis, chiding Casey for failing to allege
facts in his complaint “showing that the request for review

-- 7 of 16 --

8 No. 15‐2810
was timely filed or that he had ‘good cause’ for his untimely
filing.” 1
But why should Casey have alleged such facts? Notwith‐
standing the Appeals Council’s baffling dismissal order, the
Council plainly granted Casey’s request for additional time to
pursue his administrative appeal. In its April 12, 2012 letter,
1 The Commissioner cites but does not discuss 20 C.F.R. § 404.972, which
provides that the “dismissal of a request for Appeals Council review is
binding and not subject to further review.” The regulations distinguish
between a dismissal, see § 404.971, which is supposedly not reviewable,
and a denial, see § 404.981, which is treated as a final administrative adju‐
dication. In Boley, however, we held that a claimant whose administrative
appeal was dismissed as untimely was “entitled to judicial review of her
contention that the agency mishandled her case.” 761 F.3d at 806. In Boley,
an ALJ dismissed the claimant’s request for a hearing, and the Appeals
Council denied further review. See Boley v. Astrue, No. 3:12‐cv‐27‐RLY‐
WGH, 2013 WL 275891, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2013). The procedural pos‐
ture in this case differs slightly. Here the dismissal order came from the
Appeals Council itself. But the principle of Boley applies with equal force:
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) “allows judicial review when a claim has been presented
and finally decided,” 761 F.3d at 806, even when that final decision is (or
purports to be) a dismissal for untimeliness. See Davis v. Colvin, No. 15‐cv‐
610‐wmc, 2016 WL 5888670, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 30, 2016) (applying
Boley and holding that plaintiff could obtain judicial review of Appeals
Council’s good cause determination and dismissal order); cf. Craven v. Col‐
vin, No. 16‐cv‐53‐wmc, 2017 WL 28094, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 3, 2017)
(“[N]othing about the … reasoning in Boley provides a basis for distin‐
guishing between a situation in which an ALJ denies a request for a hear‐
ing after a finding of no good cause … from a situation in which the ALJ
or Appeals Council dismisses an untimely request for reconsideration af‐
ter a finding of no good cause … .”). In light of our discussion here, the
agency might want to rethink the Acquiescence Ruling it issued in re‐
sponse to Boley, in which it adopted an exceptionally narrow interpreta‐
tion of our holding in that case. See SSAR 16‐1(7), 2016 WL 1029286 (Mar.
14, 2016).

-- 8 of 16 --

No. 15‐2810 9
in response to Casey’s request for review and good cause
statement, the Council wrote: “We have granted your request
for more time before we act on your case.” The Council then
invited Casey to submit new evidence—not on the timeliness
issue, but only evidence “material to the issues considered in
the hearing decision dated August 25, 2011.” That hearing de‐
cision had nothing to do with timeliness or good cause for de‐
lay—it was a decision on the merits of Casey’s waiver request.
Later exchanges between attorney Sarkisian and the Ap‐
peals Council reinforce our conclusion that the Council ap‐
proved Casey’s good cause request on April 12, 2012. On April
24, 2012, Sarkisian asked for additional time to gather docu‐
ments, noting that the Council had provided his office with
“correspondence granting an appeal of an unfavorable deci‐
sion rendered against Mr. Casey.” In a response issued that
same day, the Council extended Casey’s deadline by thirty
days, and it again invited him to “send … more evidence or a
statement about the facts and the law in this case.” The Coun‐
cil made no effort to clarify the action it had taken through its
letter of April 12 or to correct Sarkisian’s understanding of the
administrative review process. Again, on May 22, 2012,
Sarkisian requested additional time to “provide the Council
with additional information before it acts upon the appeal of
Mr. Casey’s case.” And again, in a letter dated May 31, 2012,
the Council extended Casey’s deadline while giving no indi‐
cation that it was still deliberating over his good cause show‐
ing. Not once did the Council direct Casey to “complete a
‘good cause’ statement” or “provide … additional evidence
regarding his late filing”—yet the Council cited Casey’s fail‐
ure to supply such evidence in dismissing his request for re‐
view.

-- 9 of 16 --

10 No. 15‐2810
The district court acknowledged that the Council’s April
12, 2012 letter “leaves a lot to be desired,” as it “fails to make
a distinction between counsel’s request that the Appeals
Council find good cause and counsel’s request that additional
time be granted to produce additional evidence relevant to
the merits of Casey’s claim.” The court likewise acknowl‐
edged that the language in the letter “does suggest that the
purpose of the additional evidence to be produced would go
to the merits of Casey’s claim.” Nonetheless, the court con‐
cluded that the April 12 letter did not “make an affirmative
finding that Casey had demonstrated good cause.”
We respectfully disagree. Particularly when read along‐
side Sarkisian’s initial submission, the most reasonable inter‐
pretation of the April 12 letter is that it granted each of Casey’s
three requests: i.e., that the Council “grant good cause for late
filing, allow additional time to secure additional information,
and evaluate the appeal as if … timely made.” The agency
cannot nullify the effect of its April 12 letter by mischaracter‐
izing that letter in court. And because the Council granted Ca‐
sey’s good cause request, Casey had no reason to plead facts
in his complaint in support of relief that had already been pro‐
vided. Put differently, the question of good cause was settled
in Casey’s favor on April 12, 2012. Casey had no reason to re‐
litigate that question in federal court. 2
2 We agree with the district court that Casey’s primary focus in his two‐
page complaint is on the merits of his waiver claim. We also agree that we
cannot properly assess the merits at this stage because the Appeals Coun‐
cil, after granting Casey’s good cause request, failed to address the merits
in the first instance. The only final decision before us is the Council’s dis‐
missal order, and that order has nothing to do with the merits. But while
Casey’s complaint could have been more artfully drafted, it is the

-- 10 of 16 --

No. 15‐2810 11
The Commissioner makes several arguments on appeal
that warrant some discussion here. First, the Commissioner
contends that Casey’s good cause showing in his March 2,
2012 letter was insufficient. The good cause showing was ad‐
dressed to the Council’s discretion, and the Council exercised
that discretion to grant Casey’s good cause request. Whether
the Council wishes with the benefit of hindsight that it had
not done so is irrelevant. But we also think that Casey made a
viable showing of good cause to support his tardy adminis‐
trative appeal. Attorney Sarkisian represented that he never
received a copy of the ALJ’s August 25, 2011 decision and
learned of the decision only after contacting the ALJ’s cham‐
bers. (On appeal, Casey maintains that he also does not recall
“ever receiving the August 25, 2011 Notice,” though he does
not appear to have made this point before the Appeals Coun‐
cil or the district court.) Sarkisian added that his firm had
been trying to secure additional information to support Ca‐
sey’s claim but had been stymied in its efforts. The regulations
contemplate that similar explanations may qualify as just
cause for delay. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.911(b) (“Examples of cir‐
cumstances where good cause may exist include, but are not
limited to, the following situations: … You were trying very
hard to find necessary information to support your claim but
did not find the information within the stated time peri‐
ods. … You did not receive notice of the determination or de‐
agency—not Casey—that is ultimately responsible for the procedural con‐
fusion in this case. While we could remand to the district court with in‐
structions to allow Casey to amend his complaint, that would be a point‐
less formality. This action must be returned to the agency for proper ad‐
ministrative review on the merits.

-- 11 of 16 --

12 No. 15‐2810
cision.”). While the Commissioner complains to us that Ca‐
sey’s good cause showing is based on an unsworn, unverified
letter by his attorney, the Appeals Council never asked Casey
to submit more reliable evidence. It never asked for an affida‐
vit or a declaration. Nothing in the regulations requires the
claimant to supply such evidence on his own initiative. We
assume the Appeals Council had every right to request addi‐
tional proof. Having granted his request, though, it cannot
fault Casey for failing to divine what sort of additional evi‐
dence it might deem necessary to support a decision the
Council had already made in his favor.
Next, the Commissioner observes that the Appeals Coun‐
cil processes many thousands of requests for review every
year—a staggering 173,849 requests during fiscal year 2012
alone. Consequently, the Council must rely on boilerplate cor‐
respondence. In the Commissioner’s view, the onus is on the
claimant to follow up when “ambiguities in such let‐
ters … arise.” We recognize the challenges that the Social Se‐
curity Administration and many other federal agencies face
as they attempt to carry out their broad mandates with lim‐
ited resources. But we will not shift the burden to claimants
to read between the lines or chase down agency officials just
to confirm whether a clear letter actually means what it says.
That would only add burdens to both claimants and agency
officials. The Appeals Council’s April 12, 2012 letter in this
case was clear: Casey had been granted more time to litigate
the merits of his waiver claim.
At oral argument, counsel for the Commissioner also
noted that the April 12, 2012 letter was drafted (or at least
signed) by a legal assistant for the agency. In arguing that the
letter, despite its plain language, merely extended Casey’s

-- 12 of 16 --

No. 15‐2810 13
window to make his good cause showing, counsel said he
found it “highly unlikely” that the Appeals Council would
“let a legal assistant make a finding about good cause.” We
have no idea whether this legal assistant had the independent
authority to grant Casey’s request, whether she sought and
secured approval, and/or whether her letter complied with
agency protocols. But in general—and certainly in a case like
this one—a Social Security claimant may reasonably rely on
the clear representations of the agency, printed on letterhead
and dispatched in response to the claimant’s inquiry. The
agency is, after all, in a superior position to monitor its em‐
ployees and to ensure that their communications are accurate.
To sum up, we share the district court’s view that it had
jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the Appeals
Council’s “final decision” of July 17, 2013. We disagree with
the district court’s understanding as to the nature of that de‐
cision. It was not a good faith finding that Casey failed to jus‐
tify his tardy request for review. It was instead an inexplicable
U‐turn by an agency that had the effect of a bureaucratic bait‐
and‐switch after more than a year. The Council’s dismissal or‐
der was not supported by “substantial evidence[] and appro‐
priate procedures,” Boley, 761 F.3d at 808, but was instead an
arbitrary decision that we now set aside. See 5 U.S.C. § 706
(“[A] reviewing court shall … hold unlawful and set aside
agency action … found to be … arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]”).3
3 This case differs from Boley in a significant respect, and that difference
informs the relief that we grant Casey. In Boley, the agency dismissed the
claimant’s untimely request for a hearing, and the district court dismissed
the claimant’s subsequent complaint. We vacated and remanded with in‐
structions for the district court to consider whether “substantial evidence,

-- 13 of 16 --

14 No. 15‐2810
B. The Waiver Claim
We close by briefly addressing Casey’s waiver claim. Be‐
cause the Appeals Council granted Casey’s good cause re‐
quest but then arbitrarily dismissed his administrative ap‐
peal, there is no “final decision” on the underlying merits
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It is therefore inap‐
propriate for us to decide whether Casey is entitled to a
waiver of the $334,000 overpayment: that is a question for the
agency to consider on remand. The bar to prevail on such a
claim is rather high. The claimant must show both that he was
without fault with respect to the overpayment and that recov‐
ery by the agency would either defeat the purpose of the So‐
cial Security Act or violate equity and good conscience. 42
U.S.C. § 404(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.506. Given those hurdles,
Casey may have a rocky road ahead.
That said, we think Casey’s waiver claim is at least plausi‐
ble. Casey alleged in his complaint that a local office of the
Social Security Administration reviewed his case “at least five
(5) times over the previous ten (10) years” and that the inter‐
national office interceded on his behalf to forestall action by
the local office. On appeal, Casey has presented an assortment
of documents showing that the agency was aware of earnings
posted to his account between 1968 and 2004 and that Casey
and appropriate procedures,” supported the agency’s decision that the
claimant lacked good cause for her delay. 761 F.3d at 804, 808. Here, by
contrast, the agency first found that Casey had good cause for his delay
and then (apparently) changed its mind. As we set aside that arbitrary ac‐
tion and restore the agency’s prior good cause determination, there is
nothing left for the district court to do at this juncture. The agency itself
must take up the merits of Casey’s waiver claim on remand.

-- 14 of 16 --

No. 15‐2810 15
had submitted income information to the agency upon re‐
quest.4 While the fact of Casey’s overpayment is res judicata
given that Casey did not request reconsideration of the
agency’s initial determination, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.905, the
agency’s knowledge of his income and continued payment of
benefits over a period of many years—coupled with the Mar‐
shals Service’s alleged assurance that Casey was entitled to
benefits for life—may be relevant to a finding whether Casey
was without fault. See § 404.507 (“In determining whether an
individual is at fault, the Social Security Administration will
consider all pertinent circumstances … .”); see also
§§ 404.510(b), 404.510a (individual is without fault where in‐
dividual relied on erroneous information from government
agency that individual reasonably believed was involved
with benefits administration); § 404.510(g) (individual is
without fault with regard to deduction overpayment where
individual continued receiving benefits after notifying Social
Security Administration of event that should have caused de‐
ductions, provided that individual believed in good faith he
was entitled to benefits).5
4 Casey does not appear to have presented these documents to the district
court. No certified administrative record was filed in this matter, so we
cannot confirm whether the ALJ took account of the documents in reach‐
ing his decision. However, as the documents appear to be Social Security
records, we assume the agency has access to them and may consider them
in evaluating Casey’s waiver claim on remand. Cf. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.983,
404.984(a) (agency may take up any issues relating to claimant’s case on
remand, regardless whether those issues were raised in prior administra‐
tive proceedings).
5 Under 42 U.S.C. § 404(b)(1), it is not enough that a waiver claimant was
without fault: the agency will grant a waiver only where requiring repay‐

-- 15 of 16 --

16 No. 15‐2810
In any event, Casey’s uncertain prospects of success on the
merits do not excuse the Appeals Council’s arbitrary dismis‐
sal of his request for review. We reverse the judgment of the
district court and remand with orders to remand this matter
to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.
On remand, the Appeals Council shall render a final decision
on the merits of Casey’s waiver claim or shall remand for fur‐
ther consideration by an ALJ pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.983,
without revisiting the timeliness of Casey’s request for review.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ment would defeat the purpose of the Social Security Act or would be in‐
equitable. The ALJ found that Casey could not satisfy this separate re‐
quirement, as he had sufficient income and assets to cover the $334,000
overpayment. In his opening brief in this court, however, Casey writes
that he is “61 years old and without a regular source of income.” We can‐
not resolve this discrepancy, but on remand the agency may take up the
matter of Casey’s income and net worth.

-- 16 of 16 --