While on the surface it may seem that, in the interest of fairness, one who relies on the advice of a representative of the government should be entitled to the express conditions of any benefits stated by said government agent, the deeper issues involve the very system of checks and balances on which our founding fathers intended in our Constitution. The questions of potential executive fraud and misrepresentation arises were a private individual able to estop a withholding of Treasury funds contrary to the law. Certainly, the amount of time and money could amount to a huge waste of taxpayer's money should any individual with a grievance over legally denied benefits be able to bring their case to the federal courts. Finally, the public interest must always be balanced against the needs of the individual, and when grievous unfairness in the distribution of...

This becomes a much larger question than whether or not Richmond is "owed" $3,993 because of his reliance on the OPM's agent advice. This becomes a question of whether anyone who relied on one government agent's misrepresentation, whether oral or written, and whether intentionally or negligently fraudulent, should be owed money out of the federal treasury, and whether it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to use precious government resources on what could easily become a flood of claims.
On these issues, the courts have not always agreed. Initially, the Merit Systems Protection Board denied Richmond's petition, rejecting that the advice given to him by the OPM representative estopped the government. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this