Page:Arellano v. McDonough.pdf/10

Rh increase a pension that had been awarded based on anticipated income); §5110(i) (permitting retroactive benefits when “any disallowed claim is readjudicated and thereafter allowed on the basis of new and relevant evidence resulting from the correction of” certain military records). Yet despite its attention to fairness, Congress did not throw the door wide open in these circumstances or any other. In all but one instance, Congress capped retroactive benefits at roughly one year.

This pattern matters. That Congress accounted for equitable factors in setting effective dates strongly suggests that it did not expect an adjudicator to add a broader range of equitable factors to the mix. And its decision to consistently cap retroactive benefits strongly suggests that it did not expect open-ended tolling to dramatically increase the size of an award. When Congress has already considered equitable concerns and limited the relief available, “additional equitable tolling would be unwarranted.” Beggerly, 524 U. S., at 48–49.

Section 5110(b)(4), another disability-related exception to