[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27942-27944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13806]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 96-1(6)]
DeSonier v. Sullivan; Method of Application of State Intestate
Succession Law In Determining Entitlement to Child's Benefits
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27943]]
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 422.406(b)(2), the Commissioner of
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 96-
1(6).
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary Sargent, Litigation Staff, Social Security Administration, 6401
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 965-1695.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although not required to do so pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this Social Security
Acquiescence Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 422.406(b)(2).
A Social Security Acquiescence Ruling explains how we will apply a
holding in a decision of a United States Court of Appeals that we
determine conflicts with our interpretation of a provision of the
Social Security Act (the Act) or regulations when the Government has
decided not to seek further review of that decision or is unsuccessful
on further review.
We will apply the holding of the Court of Appeals decision as
explained in this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling to claims at all
levels of administrative adjudication within the Sixth Circuit. This
Social Security Acquiescence Ruling will apply to all determinations
and decisions made on or after June 3, 1996. If we made a determination
or decision on your application for benefits between June 22, 1990, the
date of the Court of Appeals decision, and June 3, 1996, the effective
date of this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling, you may request
application of the Ruling to your claim if you first demonstrate,
pursuant to 20 CFR 404.985(b), that application of the Ruling could
change our prior determination or decision.
If this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling is later rescinded as
obsolete, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that
effect as provided for in 20 CFR 404.985(e). If we decide to relitigate
the issue covered by this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling as
provided for by 20 CFR 404.985(c), we will publish a notice in the
Federal Register stating that we will apply our interpretation of the
Act or regulations involved and explaining why we have decided to
relitigate the issue.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 96.001 Social
Security - Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security - Retirement
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security - Survivors Insurance; 96.005
Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners.)
Dated: March 19, 1996.
Shirley S. Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Acquiescence Ruling 96-1(6)
DeSonier v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1990)--Method of
Application of State Intestate Succession Law in Determining
Entitlement to Child's Benefits--Title II of the Social Security Act.
Issue: Whether, for purposes of determining a child's status under
section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act), the Social
Security Administration (SSA)1 must apply the State law of
intestate succession in effect at the time of SSA's determination,
rather than the law in effect at the time of the worker's death, and
whether SSA must apply changes in State intestacy law in the same
manner as State courts would apply the changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Social Security Independence and Program
Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-296, effective March 31,
1995, the Social Security Administration (SSA) became an independent
agency in the Executive Branch of the United States Government and
was provided ultimate responsibility for administering the Social
Security programs under title II of the Act. Prior to March 31,
1995, the Secretary of Health and Human Services had such
responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation: Section 216(h)(2)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A)); 20 CFR 404.354(b).
Circuit: Sixth (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
DeSonier v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1990)
Applicability of Ruling: This Ruling applies to determinations or
decisions at all administrative levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing or Appeals Council).
Description of Case: Denise DeSonier and Russell Phillis were never
married but lived together from September 1977 until July 1979. They
first lived together in Florida and then later in Ohio. DeSonier left
Phillis when she was pregnant and returned to Michigan where her family
lived. Amanda DeSonier was born to the plaintiff on October 31, 1979.
DeSonier did not enter a name for Amanda's father on the birth
certificate and she never sought court-ordered support from Phillis.
DeSonier testified that Phillis had paid her prenatal medical expenses
and had purchased a cradle for the baby. Phillis visited DeSonier once
after Amanda was born and gave her a check for $155 drawn on a joint
bank account they had maintained while living together. However,
DeSonier had closed the account after they separated, so the check was
not honored. Phillis died on January 29, 1986.
The plaintiff's application for child's benefits on Phillis'
earnings record was denied at both the initial and reconsideration
levels of the administrative review process. After a hearing, an ALJ
found that DeSonier and Phillis did not enter into a valid common law
marriage while living together in Ohio and that Amanda DeSonier did not
qualify as the deceased wage earner's child under any other provision
of the Act. The ALJ also considered section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act,
which would allow Amanda to be considered Phillis' child if she would
have the same status as a child under the intestate succession law that
would be applied by the courts of the State in which Phillis was
domiciled at the time of his death. In the decision issued on December
24, 1987, the ALJ recognized that because Phillis lived in Texas when
he died the claimant's relationship to the deceased wage earner is
determined by applying the laws of Texas. The ALJ considered the Texas
intestacy law in existence up to August 27, 1979, the last amendment to
Texas law before Phillis' death, and concluded that Amanda DeSonier was
not the child of the wage earner under Texas law as required by section
216(h)(2)(A) of the Act.
The plaintiff sought judicial review but did not respond to SSA's
motion for summary judgment so the case was submitted on the
administrative record. The United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan granted SSA's motion for summary judgment and
found that Amanda DeSonier did not qualify for benefits under several
provisions of the Act. The plaintiff appealed alleging that she
qualified under the Texas law of intestate succession as amended
effective September 1, 1987, and that the ALJ should have applied the
law of Texas in effect at the time his decision was issued in December
1987. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed
the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further
remand to SSA with instructions to reconsider the plaintiff's
application under current Texas law.
Holding: The Court of Appeals agreed with the Ninth Circuit in
Owens v. Schweiker, 692 F.2d 80 (9th Cir. 1982) ``that in determining
an applicant's status under [section] 416(h)(2)(A), the Secretary is
required to apply the state intestacy law in effect at the time of his
decision rather than at the time of the wage earner's death.'' The
court also adopted the Third Circuit's approach in Morales on Behalf of
Morales v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 481 (3d Cir. 1987), ``that the
[[Page 27944]]
Secretary must determine the time at which the state fixes intestate
rights and must apply the statute that would be applied by the state's
courts.''
After reviewing the leading cases on whether Texas courts would
retroactively apply amendments to Texas intestacy law that provide ``a
new or additional method by which an illegitimate child may establish
its rights of inheritance from the natural father,'' the circuit court
concluded that Texas courts would have applied the 1987 amendment in
determining Amanda DeSonier's inheritance rights.2 The court
therefore held that SSA erred by not considering the 1987 amendment and
that Amanda DeSonier's status under section 216(h)(2)(A) ``should have
been determined by applying the 1987 amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The court considered the following leading cases: Reed v.
Campbell, 476 U.S. 852 (1986) and Henson v. Jarmon, 758 S.W.2d 368
(Tex. Ct. App. 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement As To How DeSonier Differs From Social Security Policy
In accordance with section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, SSA uses State
laws to decide whether a claimant is the child of a deceased worker.
Under its regulations (20 CFR 404.354(b)) implementing section
216(h)(2)(A), SSA ``look[s] to the laws that were in effect at the time
the insured worker died in the State where the insured had his or her
permanent home.''
The DeSonier court held that SSA is required to apply the State
intestacy law in force at the time of SSA's determination or decision
in the manner in which it would be applied by State courts.
Explanation of How SSA Will Apply The DeSonier Decision Within The
Circuit
This Ruling applies only to cases involving an applicant for
child's benefits who resides in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio or Tennessee
at the time of the determination or decision at any administrative
level, i.e., initial, reconsideration, ALJ hearing or Appeals Council.
In a claim for surviving child's benefits involving section
216(h)(2)(A) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A)), to determine the
right of the child to inherit under the intestacy law in the State of
the worker's domicile at the time of death, adjudicators must consider
all changes in the State law through the time of the determination or
decision at any level of administrative review, i.e., initial,
reconsideration, ALJ hearing or Appeals Council review, to determine
the child's entitlement to benefits. In cases where the State law has
changed, SSA must determine at the time of the determination or
decision which State laws would be applied by State courts to fix
intestate inheritance rights and must apply amendments to State
intestacy laws in the same manner as the State courts would apply the
changes.
[FR Doc. 96-13806 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-F
