Morgan Hayes was given $13,000 by the Social Security Administration last year and told she had been previously underpaid. After writing to make sure it was true, she spent the money, and now, months later the SSA is asking for the money to be returned. She fears she won't be able to afford her HUD housing unit in Petaluma.

Petaluma woman wins, Social Security admits error

You'll have to forgive Morgan Hayes if she's a bit skeptical of the latest letter she received from the Social Security Administration saying she does not need to repay a $15,300 overpayment.

Hayes, a Petaluma senior citizen, was threatened in March with having to repay that sum after a seven-month Social Security payment snafu.

Late last week, she was notified that she isn't responsible for fixing the government's error.

"I was stunned," said Hayes, 76, who lives in subsidized housing and gets by on a $1,100 monthly benefit from Social Security. "I'm still not convinced."

Social Security has now told Hayes that she will not be forced to come up with the funds that were mistakenly credited to her in September, money she subsequently spent.

Hayes' predicament, chronicled in The Press Democrat, garnered public attention and intensified support from advocates at the Council on Aging, which lodged an appeal on Hayes' behalf. Several other seniors contacted the newspaper relaying similar payment errors by the Social Security Administration.

A Social Security spokesman said those receiving benefits almost always have appeal rights, but they come with time limits.

"So it's important to read the notice carefully, and if you disagree, make sure that any appeals are filed within the time limit," said spokesman Lowell Kepke.

"Most Social Security determinations are appealable. There's a multi-step process for appealing. The first one is simple, which is asking for a reconsideration of the initial decision."

Typically, he said, if the mistake isn't the person's fault or if they can prove they cannot repay the money, the appeal is granted.

Hayes' saga began in September, when Hayes was credited with $13,733 and was told her monthly payment would increase by $260. Repeated letters said the lump sum was to rectify years of underpayments to her.

After multiple assurances from Social Security that the money was hers to spend, Hayes used it to pay down debt and get a newer used car.

But then in March, the government reversed itself and said the credit and monthly increase were mistakes and it wanted the money back, $15,329 in total. Worse, she was told she had 30 days to send in the full amount or her benefits would be completely cut off until it was repaid.

In the meantime, because of her increased income, Hayes' rent was raised and her subsidized MediCal benefits were in jeopardy.

Worried that she and her cat would become destitute, Hayes, who has no family nearby, sought help from the Council on Aging. But she said a worker at the local Social Security office wouldn't accept her appeal paperwork.

The Council on Aging took up Hayes' cause again, having a paralegal resubmit appeal and reconsideration documents on Hayes' behalf. The Social Security Administration, when contacted by a reporter, said they would look into it and promised Hayes wouldn't lose her benefits in the meantime.

On April 9, Hayes received a letter from the Kansas City Social Security office, telling her that her regular benefits would continue through May while the appeal was considered.

"That didn't give me any warm fuzzies," Hayes said Thursday.

Then, she received a letter dated April 22 from the Santa Rosa office notifying her that her appeal was successful.

"We are waiving the collection of your overpayment of $15,329," it stated. "This means you will not have to pay this money back."

The administration determined the mistake was not Hayes' and that she will not have to repay the money.

"Based on the facts we have, we found that both of these are true about you, therefore you will not have to pay us back," the letter said.

Hayes said her rent increase is now being reassessed and should return to her old rate. And her MediCal benefits are safe.

Still, even with the latest government assurance in hand, Hayes remains doubtful.

"For the time being it's OK. But I expect to get another letter saying, &‘Oh, we made another mistake,'" she said. "This is a lesson to people who have that problem. Get out there and do something about it."

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.