[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41989-41990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20272]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 97-3(11)]
Daniels on Behalf of Daniels v. Sullivan; Application of a
State's Intestacy Law Requirement That Paternity be Established During
the Lifetime of the Father
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 422.406(b)(2), the Commissioner of
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 97-
3(11).
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1997.
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 Eleventh Circuit. This
Social Security Acquiescence Ruling will apply to all determinations
and decisions made on or after August 4, 1997. If we made a
determination or decision on your application for benefits between
December 30, 1992, the date of the Court of Appeals decision, and
August 4, 1997, 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If this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling is later rescinded as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 Program 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: December 20, 1995.
Shirley S. Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Editorial note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register July 28, 1997.
Acquiescence Ruling 97-3(11)
Daniels on Behalf of Daniels v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir.
1992)--Application of a State's Intestacy Law Requirement that
Paternity be Established During the Lifetime of the Father--Title II of
the Social Security Act.
Issue: Whether, in determining a child's status under section
216(h)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act), the Social Security
Administration (SSA),1 in applying the requirement imposed
by a State's law of intestate succession that an illegitimate child
establish paternity during the lifetime of the father, created an
insurmountable barrier that violated the constitutional right to equal
protection of the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Social Security Independence and Program
Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-296, effective March 31,
1995, 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: Sections 202(d) and
216(h)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d) and
416(h)(2)(A)); 20 CFR 404.354(b).
Circuit: Eleventh (Alabama, Florida, Georgia)
Daniels on Behalf of Daniels v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir.
1992).
Applicability of Ruling: This Ruling applies to determinations or
decisions at all administrative levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing and Appeals Council).
Description of Case: On April 11, 1985, Cassandra Daniels, who was
14 years old, gave birth to a son, Adonis Daniels. Daniels claimed that
Kirby Marshall was Adonis' father even though Daniels and Marshall
never married or lived together, and a father's name was not listed on
the child's birth certificate. Although Marshall did not provide
support for Adonis, both Daniels' mother and Marshall's mother stated
that he was the father. Marshall died in an automobile accident on
September 12, 1987.
In November 1987 Daniels filed an application, on behalf of Adonis,
for child's benefits on Marshall's earnings record but the claim was
denied, both initially and upon reconsideration, because the child did
not satisfy any of the statutory entitlement requirements. After a
hearing, an ALJ found that Adonis was not Marshall's ``child'' under
section 216(h)(3) of the Act because the deceased wage earner was not
living with or contributing to the support of Adonis at the time of his
death. The ALJ also found that Adonis was not entitled under the other
definitions of child in section 216(h), including the definition
incorporated by reference from the Georgia law of intestate
succession.2 However, the ALJ stated that Adonis appeared to
be the child of the worker. The Appeals Council denied Daniels' request
for review of the ALJ's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At the pertinent time, Georgia law provided that a child
born out of wedlock may inherit from or through his father or any
paternal kin only if the criteria specified in the statute are
satisfied ``during the lifetime of the father and after conception
of the child.'' A 1991 amendment, not applicable in this case,
expanded the time frame for establishing paternity to include the
period when proceedings on the father's estate are pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff sought judicial review alleging that SSA's
application of the Georgia statutory scheme for intestate succession
was unconstitutional because it denied her child equal protection of
law. The district court affirmed SSA's findings and rejected the
[[Page 41990]]
constitutional challenge. Daniels appealed and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the
district court on the grounds that, as applied to the particular facts
of the case, SSA's use of Georgia intestacy law was unconstitutional.
Holding: After carefully considering the principles stated in the
leading cases addressing the constitutionality of similar State
statutes, the Court of Appeals held that ``as applied to this case, the
Social Security Act's incorporation of the Georgia intestacy scheme
violates equal protection.''3 Noting that the United States
Supreme Court, in Pickett v. Brown, had ruled unconstitutional a State
statute that imposed a two-year limit on paternity and child support
actions on behalf of certain illegitimate children, the Daniels court
found that the obstacles that prevented a child from establishing
paternity during the first two years after birth persisted, at least,
into the third year. Accordingly, the court concluded that ``where the
father died less than two and one-half years after Adonis' birth, the
requirement that paternity be established during the lifetime of the
father effectively `impose[d] an unconstitutional insurmountable
barrier which denie[d] appellant the equal protection of the
laws.'''4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The court considered the following leading cases: Clark v.
Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988); Pickett v. Brown, 462 U.S. 1 (1983);
Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91 (1982); Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S.
259 (1978); and Handley, By and Through Herron v. Schweiker, 697
F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1983).
\4\ Quoting Handley, 697 F.2d at 1003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The court also noted that Daniels was further impeded in
establishing the paternity of her child because of her status as a
minor. Although the court did not hold that the Georgia intestacy
statute was unconstitutional, it found that SSA's application of that
statute to the specific facts of the case when determining Daniels'
eligibility for Social Security survivors benefits violated equal
protection.
Statement As To How Daniels 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 regulation (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 State laws governing intestate succession (i.e.,
the laws State courts use to decide whether a claimant could inherit a
child's share of the worker's personal property if the worker had died
without leaving a will) are controlling.
The Daniels court found that the Act's incorporation of the Georgia
intestacy law's requirement that the paternity of an illegitimate child
be established during the lifetime of the father was unconstitutional
as applied to the facts in Daniels' case, where paternity would have
had to be established in less than two and one-half years from the date
of the child's birth. Under these circumstances, the court found that
the requirement constituted an insurmountable barrier and violated the
child's right to equal protection of law.
Explanation of How SSA Will Apply The Daniels Decision Within The
Circuit
This Ruling applies only to cases where the applicant for surviving
child's benefits under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act resides in
Alabama, Florida or Georgia at the time of the determination or
decision at any administrative level, i.e., initial, reconsideration,
ALJ hearing or Appeals Council.
When adjudicating a claim for surviving child's benefits involving
the establishment of inheritance rights under a State's intestacy law,
SSA will allow a period of two and one-half years from the date of
birth of the applicant for the commencement and resolution of
legitimacy proceedings before applying a statutory requirement that
requires an illegitimate child to establish paternity during the
lifetime of the father. Adjudicators will continue to apply the other
provisions of State intestacy law in effect on the date of the worker's
death.
[FR Doc. 97-20272 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-F
