doubt, however, on whether estoppel may run against the government. For example, in Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990), the Supreme Court held that courts may not use the doctrine of equitable estoppel to award money not authorized by Congress. The Court declined to address, however, “[w]hether there are any extreme circumstances that might support estoppel in a case not involving payment from the Treasury.” Id. at 434, 110 S.Ct. at 2476. In a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit indicated that estoppel may run against the government in certain circumstances and that OPM v. Richmond should not be extended beyond its precise holding. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr., Inc. v. United States, 985 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); see Brush v. Office of Personnel Management,
recognizing that richmond was limited to estoppel claims involving payment from the public treasury recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa recognizing that equitable estoppel will not lie against the government as it lies against private litigants and acknowledging merrill as the leading case in the courts modern line of estoppel decisions holding that this court erred in concluding that richmond stands for the proposition that equitable estoppel will not lie against the government for any monetary claim and remanding for consideration of the facts supporting the estoppel claim holding estoppel claim could not lie in tort where the facts that support the claim could not support a claim for fraud or misrepresentation