Ronald Hawrelak v. Carolyn Colvin, 667 F. App'x 161

Ronald Hawrelak, a naturalized U.S. citizen, receives U.S. Social Security retirement benefits and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefits based on substantial work periods in both countries (24 years U.S., 10 years Canada).
SSA began paying Hawrelak benefits in December 2005; later recalculated benefits and sought to recover overpayments after concluding CPP triggered the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).
SSA reduced Hawrelak’s U.S. benefit amount under 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7); the agency waived the overpayment but continued the reduced ongoing benefit.
Hawrelak administratively appealed, arguing (1) his CPP benefits were exempt under the U.S.–Canada totalization agreement and (2) CPP was a mere employee savings plan (no employer contributions) so WEP should not apply; ALJ and Appeals Council upheld SSA’s decision.
The district court affirmed; on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the court reviewed whether (a) the totalization agreement applied and (b) the CPP is subject to WEP given employer contribution rules, and considered procedural objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CPP payments are excluded from WEP because they are “based on” a totalization agreement	Hawrelak: CPP should be treated as totalized benefits exempting him from WEP	SSA: Hawrelak qualified for benefits on his own work credits in both countries, so the totalization agreement does not apply	Totalization agreement does not apply; benefits were not based on the agreement, so no exemption
Whether CPP is a mere employee savings plan (only employee contributions) so WEP cannot apply	Hawrelak: Employer did not contribute to CPP; POMS says WEP not applied if only employee contributions	SSA: Canadian law generally requires employer contributions to CPP; record contains no support for Hawrelak’s assertion	WEP applicable; substantial evidence supports finding that CPP is not a mere employee savings plan and employer contributions are required
Whether procedural delays or administrative errors require remand	Hawrelak: Procedural shortcomings and missing records undermined the process	SSA: Any administrative errors were harmless; ALJ reached the correct result on the merits	Procedural complaints do not warrant reversal; any errors were harmless and would not change the outcome

Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F.3d 633 (8th Cir.) (discussing WEP context)
Stroup v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir.) (WEP background)
McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.) (harmless administrative error standard)
Newton v. Shalala, 874 F. Supp. 296 (D. Or.) (totalization inapplicable when U.S. earnings suffice)
Vanlerberghe v. Apfel, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan.) (same conclusion on totalization)