Social Security denied my spousal benefits repeatedly - won in court but stuck with reduced payment due to late enrollment penalty

I'm so sorry this happened to you. Unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. The SSA has something called "administrative finality" which limits how far back they can correct errors. Even when it's their mistake, they often stick to their rules. For your specific situation, you should consider requesting an "equitable relief" review. This is specifically for cases where an SSA employee gave incorrect information that caused financial harm. You'll need to file Form SSA-795 (Statement of Claimant) explaining exactly what happened, which employees you spoke with, and when. Also, there's a difference between the retroactive payment limitation (usually 6 months for retirement benefits) and the late enrollment penalty (which reduces your benefit permanently). Those are separate issues you might need to address differently.

WOW this is CRAZY!! The same thing happened to my sister-in-law last year!!! They told her she wasnt eligible for widows benefits then 2 yrs later they said she WAS eligible the whole time but she lost money because of THEIR mistake!!!! The whole system is rigged against us seniors I swear

This is definitely a frustrating situation, but there are a few options you can still pursue: 1. Contact your Congressional Representative's office. They have staff dedicated to helping constituents with federal agency issues, including Social Security. They can sometimes cut through red tape that seems impossible for individuals. 2. File a complaint with the SSA Inspector General about the misinformation you received. 3. Request a meeting with the District Manager at your local SSA office (not just a claims representative). Bring all documentation showing your original application attempts. 4. If your last appeal was to the Appeals Council and was denied, the next step would technically be Federal Court, though that's expensive and time-consuming. Regarding the late enrollment penalty - there's a specific process for requesting penalty relief due to government misinformation. This is separate from your benefit amount appeal.

I went through something similar with SSA and spent WEEKS trying to get through to someone who could actually help. The phone lines were always busy or I'd wait for hours only to get disconnected. Finally I found this service called Claimyr (claimyr.com) that got me through to a live agent in under 5 minutes. They have a video demo at https://youtu.be/Z-BRbJw3puU showing how it works. Once I finally got to speak with a knowledgeable agent, they helped me file for equitable relief and I was able to get part of my penalty removed. Definitely worth getting through to someone senior who can actually review your case properly instead of just the frontline reps who keep denying you.

my uncle had something like this happen but with disability not spousal benefits. he also had to get a lawyer. the whole system is just designed to make us give up i think. good luck fighting them

One more suggestion that might help: specifically request a "Good Cause" determination for the late enrollment penalty. Under certain circumstances, SSA can waive penalties if you can show it wasn't your fault. Being given incorrect information by an SSA employee qualifies as "good cause." Also, have you checked whether you're entitled to benefits on your own work record? Sometimes people focus so much on spousal benefits they don't realize they might qualify for more on their own record. For the retroactive benefits limitation, unfortunately the law only allows 6 months of retroactive payments for retirement claims filed after FRA (Full Retirement Age), so that part might be harder to fight unless you can prove you actually completed applications earlier that they lost or improperly processed.

i dont understand why medicare is tied to ss anyway! its so confusing my husband got medicare at 65 but they said he couldnt get SS til 67 but then my friend got both at 65??? make it make sense!!!

I'm curious - did your attorney explain why they could only go back 1.5 years for your retroactive benefits? There's usually a clear rule about this, and your attorney should have explained the limitation. Also, for the late enrollment penalty - did you have creditable health insurance coverage through your employer the entire time? If so, you shouldn't face a Medicare Part B penalty at all. That's a separate issue from the reduced Social Security benefit amount. For the reduced Social Security benefit, was this because they're saying you filed at age 69 instead of 65? If so, that doesn't make sense - filing after your Full Retirement Age should give you delayed retirement credits, increasing your benefit, not reducing it. Something doesn't add up in how they calculated your benefits.

this is why i tell everyone to record phone calls with ss or get everything in writing!!! they mess up all the time and then we're the ones who suffer

Based on your additional information, I think you're dealing with two separate issues that might be getting confused: 1. Social Security spousal benefits: If you filed at 69, you should actually get MORE than 50% of your husband's benefit due to delayed retirement credits, not less. The 6-month retroactive payment limitation is correct, unfortunately. 2. Medicare penalties: This is likely a separate issue. The late enrollment penalty for Medicare Part B adds 10% to your premium for each 12-month period you could have had Part B but didn't. However, if you had creditable employer coverage, you should have qualified for a Special Enrollment Period with NO penalty. I suspect the $410 vs $925 difference isn't just about penalties - it might be that they calculated your benefit incorrectly or applied the wrong formula entirely. At this point, I strongly recommend requesting a detailed benefit calculation explanation from SSA in writing. Ask specifically for a breakdown of how they arrived at $410 instead of $925. Once you have that, the error might become clearer and easier to appeal.