the Railroad Retirement Board”; therefore, she “assumed that reporting her earnings to either government agency” satisfied her obligation to report. Id. Most pointedly, she said, “I never thought I would be charged twice for going over the limit and lose all that money I had earned or I would not have worked past the limit.” AR at 45. This court has divided on the question whether, under the governing statutes, Burns could “be charged twice for going over the limit,” thereby “los[ing] all [the] money she had earned.” In light of the division on the court, it is all the more difficult to charge her with fault for her understanding of the advice she received from the Administration and the Board concerning benefit offsets for excess earnings. Cf. Hays v. Finch, supra, 306 F.Supp. at 120 (<HOLDING>). In sum, on the record this case presents, the
holding plaintiff not at fault in accepting a lump sum social security benefit a second time observing that the agencys fault finding might be appropriate if plaintiff were an accountant holding that under michigans reformed tortliability scheme the defendant union was not entitled to a setoff for a settlement received by plaintiff and holding that michigans allocation of fault scheme would permit the trier of fact to allocate fault regardless of whether all tortfeasors were parties to the proceeding holding that the mere application for other benefits is not fault holding that an eic was neither a social security benefit nor a local public assistance benefit recognizing the benefit of alternative determinations in the social security review process