[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-11656

____________________

KATHLEEN STEELE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cv-02522-VMC-AEP

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 1 of 14 RESTRICTED
2 Opinion of the Court 20-11656

____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

LAGOA, Circuit Judge:

This case requires us to apply old statutes to new problems. 

Philip Steele cryopreserved several sperm samples before his death. 

His surviving wife, Kathleen Steele, relied on those sperm samples 

and in vitro fertilization to conceive a child, P.S.S. She then sought 

child’s insurance benefits (“CIB”) under the Social Security Act on 

behalf of P.S.S. The Social Security Administration (the “Administration”) denied the claim for CIB, and the administrative law 

judge, the magistrate judge, and the district court all upheld the 

Administration’s denial of the claim.

The central issue in this appeal is whether P.S.S. is entitled 

to recover CIB under the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 402(d). To answer that question, we must determine whether 

Florida law authorizes P.S.S. to inherit a child’s share of Mr. Steele’s 

intestate personal property, as is required in order to recover CIB.

See id. § 416(h)(2)(A). The district court, the magistrate judge, and 

the administrative law judge all concluded no, reasoning that, under Florida Statute § 742.17(4), a child posthumously conceived—

like P.S.S.—could inherit property only through the decedent’s 

will, and not through intestacy, as required to be entitled to CIB.

Because the Florida Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of Florida law, has not published a decision addressing this 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 2 of 14 RESTRICTED
20-11656 Opinion of the Court 3

question, principles of comity and federalism suggest that the Florida Supreme Court should decide this issue. See WM Mobile Bay 

Env’t Ctr., Inc. v. City of Mobile Solid Waste Auth., 972 F.3d 1240, 

1242 (11th Cir. 2020). We therefore respectfully certify the issues 

of Florida law discussed below to the Florida Supreme Court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Phillip and Kathleen Steele married in August 1997. The 

couple decided to have children late in life. In 2009, through in 

vitro fertilization, Ms. Steele conceived her first child. The couple 

decided to have more children, and Mr. Steele, before his death,

provided additional sperm samples to the fertility clinic that had 

assisted the couple with their first child. Using one of those samples after Mr. Steele’s death, Ms. Steele again conceived through in 

vitro fertilization. Her second child, P.S.S.—for whom Ms. Steele

seeks CIB in this case—was born in March 2013, seventeen months 

after Mr. Steele’s death.

Before his death, Mr. Steele prepared a will through his attorney, Louie Adcock. The will specifically listed his living children, but it also stated, “The terms ‘children’ and ‘lineal descendants’ shall include those later born or adopted and whenever used 

in this instrument shall be equivalent to blood relationship and relationship by adoption.” 

Shortly after P.S.S.’s birth, Ms. Steele applied for CIB under 

the Social Security Act on behalf of P.S.S. In support of her application, she attached P.S.S.’s birth certificate, which listed Mr. Steele

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 3 of 14 RESTRICTED
4 Opinion of the Court 20-11656

as the father. She also submitted letters from Mr. Adcock, who had 

helped prepare Mr. Steele’s will, and Dr. Julio Pabon, who had carried out the in vitro procedures. In his letter, Mr. Adcock opined 

that Mr. Steele’s preserving sperm before his death, which was then 

used by Ms. Steele to conceive P.S.S. after Mr. Steele’s death, was 

“an indication that this was a planned pregnancy,” given that Mr. 

Steele was aware of his age and health and was “devoted” to Ms. 

Steele. As such, Mr. Adcock stated that he believed Mr. Steele 

would consider the “pregnancy as being planned.” But Mr. Adcock 

admitted that he did “not recall having had a conversation with 

[Mr. Steele] about the preservation of sperm.” Dr. Pabon, in his 

letter, stated that Ms. Steele had conceived P.S.S. using Mr. Steele’s 

preserved sperm and that Mr. Steele had “documented his desire 

for his wife to use the sperm for a future conception even if he were 

to be incapacitated or deceased.” 

In February 2014, the Social Security Administration denied 

the CIB claim. The Administration explained that P.S.S. did “not 

meet the dependency requirement for benefits” and upheld the denial after Ms. Steele sought reconsideration. 

Ms. Steele then sought review of the agency’s decision by an 

administrative law judge, who denied the claim. The administrative law judge explained that, to qualify for CIB, the claimant must 

be the deceased individual’s “child” within the meaning of the Social Security Act, which in turn depended on whether “the claimant 

could inherit a child’s share of the insured individual’s intestate personal property under the law of the State in which the insured 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 4 of 14 RESTRICTED
20-11656 Opinion of the Court 5

individual was domiciled when he died”—here, Florida. Applying 

Florida law, the administrative law judge concluded that P.S.S. 

could not recover intestate property. The administrative law judge 

determined that the relevant Florida statute was section 742.17(4),1

which provides that a posthumously conceived child “shall not be 

eligible for a claim against the decedent’s estate unless the child has 

been provided for by the decedent’s will.” The administrative law 

judge concluded that, under section 742.17(4), posthumously conceived children could “only inherit through the person’s will,” not 

through intestacy. The administrative law judge further found that 

Mr. Steele had not provided for P.S.S. in his will because the will

did not “specifically provide for the claimant or otherwise indicate 

his intent to provide for any child conceived after his death.” The 

Appeals Council declined Ms. Steele’s request for review of the administrative law judge’s decision. 

Having exhausted her administrative remedies, Steele filed 

suit in federal court against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). The district court referred the matter to 

1 In doing so, the administrative judge law reasoned that, while there was no 

case law where a Florida court had specifically applied section 742.17 “to determine a child’s status for purposes of intestate succession,” it was “safe to 

assume that a Florida court would find [section] 742.17(4) applicable in determining the claimant’s intestacy rights,” given “Florida precedent recognizing 

determinations of paternity under some parts of Chapter 742 for the purposes 

of determining intestacy rights.” 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 5 of 14 RESTRICTED
6 Opinion of the Court 20-11656

a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation that 

recommended affirming the administrative law judge’s decision

that upheld the denial of the CIB claim. The magistrate judge 

agreed with the administrative law judge that P.S.S. “did not qualify as an ‘afterborn heir’ under Florida intestacy law because he was 

born seventeen months after the death of Mr. Steele.” The magistrate judge also found that the administrative law judge’s interpretation of section 742.17(4) was correct in determining that “posthumously conceived children cannot inherit property intestate under 

Florida law, but rather can only inherit property through a person’s 

will.” In doing so, the magistrate judge rejected Steele’s argument 

that section 742.17(4) allowed P.S.S. to inherit under Florida intestacy laws because there was a will—Mr. Steele’s—providing for 

P.S.S. The magistrate judge reasoned that “intestacy, by its nature, 

is inheriting a decedent[’]s estate absent the existence of a valid 

will.” 

Ms. Steele filed objections to the report and recommendation. The district court overruled her objections and adopted the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. This appeal ensued.

II. ANALYSIS 

On appeal, Ms. Steele argues that the district court erred in 

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and 

by not granting CIB to P.S.S. Specifically, Ms. Steele contends that 

the phrase “unless the child has been provided for by the decedent’s 

will” in Florida Statute § 742.17(4) effectively vests such a child 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 6 of 14 RESTRICTED
20-11656 Opinion of the Court 7

with intestate rights in the event he or she is provided for by the 

decedent’s will. Relying on this interpretation, Ms. Steele asserts 

that P.S.S. was provided for in Mr. Steele’s will such that P.S.S. is 

entitled to inherit intestate a share of the personal property of his 

parent, Mr. Steele, under Florida law. And, as such, Ms. Steele contends that P.S.S. is considered a “child” within the meaning of the 

Social Security Act and is entitled to CIB. In response, the Commissioner contends that the interpretation of the administrative 

law judge, magistrate judge, and district court is correct—i.e., that, 

under section 742.17(4), a posthumously conceived child may inherit only through the decedent’s will, if provided for, and thus not 

through intestacy.

We first turn to the relevant statutory provisions and case 

law. Under the Social Security Act, an applicant qualifies for CIB if 

he “meets the Act’s definition of ‘child,’ is unmarried, is below specified age limits (18 or 19) or is under a disability which began prior

to age 22, and was dependent on the insured at the time of the insured’s death.” Astrue v. Capato ex rel. B.N.C., 566 U.S. 541, 547 

(2012); 42 U.S.C. § 402(d). Title 42 U.S.C. § 416(e) defines “child,” 

in relevant part, as “(1) the child or legally adopted child of an individual, (2) a stepchild [under certain circumstances], and (3) . . . the 

grandchild or stepgrandchild of an individual or his spouse [who 

meets certain conditions].” Astrue, 566 U.S. at 547. Additionally, 

a subsequent definitional provision addresses the term “child.” 

This statute—42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A)—provides that “[i]n determining whether an applicant is the child or parent of [an] individual 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 7 of 14 RESTRICTED
8 Opinion of the Court 20-11656

for purposes of this subchapter, the Commissioner of Social Security shall apply [the intestacy law of the insured individual’s domiciliary State].” Astrue, 566 U.S. at 548 (some alterations in original) 

(quoting § 416(h)(2)(A)). As the Supreme Court has explained, 

§ 416(h)(2)(A) “completes the definition of ‘child’ ‘for purposes of 

th[e] subchapter’ that includes § 416(e)(1).” See id. at 558 (alteration in original) (quoting § 416(h)(2)(A)). Thus, we must determine 

whether under Florida law P.S.S.—a posthumously conceived 

child—can inherit Mr. Steele’s personal property through intestacy.

Whether posthumously conceived children can inherit 

through intestacy under Florida law is a question of first impression

for this Court. And because the issue before us involves questions

of statutory interpretation, “we begin ‘where all such inquiries 

must begin: with the language of the statute itself,’ giving ‘effect to 

the plain terms of the statute.’” Paresky v. United States, 995 F.3d 

1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Henco Holding Corp., 985 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2021)). In determining the 

plain meaning of a statute, “we consider ‘the “particular statutory language at issue”’ as well as ‘the language and design of the 

statute as a whole.’” Id. (quoting Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. United 

States, 455 F.3d 1261, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2006)).

Under Florida law, “[a]ny part of the estate of a decedent not 

effectively disposed of by will passes to the decedent’s heirs,” Fla. 

Stat. § 732.101(1), which includes “the descendants of the decedent,” id. § 732.103(1). Under Florida Statute § 731.201(9), a 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 8 of 14 RESTRICTED
20-11656 Opinion of the Court 9

“descendant” is “synonymous with the terms ‘lineal descendant’ 

and ‘issue’” and means “a person in any generational level down 

the applicable individual’s descending line and includes children, 

grandchildren, and more remote descendants.” Florida’s probate 

code also contains a section titled, “Afterborn heirs.” Fla. Stat. 

§ 732.106. This section states that afterborn heirs are “[h]eirs of the 

decedent conceived before his or her death, but born thereafter,” 

and “inherit intestate property as if they had been born in the decedent’s lifetime.” Id. (emphasis added). As the parties agree, section 

732.106 does not apply to P.S.S. because he was conceived after Mr. 

Steele’s death.

In addressing this issue, the administrative law judge, magistrate judge, and district court—as well as the parties in their 

briefs—analyzed section 742.17(4), titled “Disposition of eggs, 

sperm, or preembryos; rights of inheritance.” Section 742.17(4) is 

not contained in Florida’s probate code; rather, it is in Florida’s domestic relations laws. Section 742.17(4) provides that “[a] child 

conceived from the eggs or sperm of a person or persons who died 

before the transfer of their eggs, sperm, or preembryos to a 

woman’s body shall not be eligible for a claim against the decedent’s estate unless the child has been provided for by the decedent’s will.” 

Here, the parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “unless 

the child has been provided for by the decedent’s will” in section 

742.17(4). The administrative law judge interpreted section 

742.17(4) to provide that a posthumously conceived child cannot 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 9 of 14 RESTRICTED
10 Opinion of the Court 20-11656

inherit the decedent’s intestate personal property because that 

posthumously conceived child could only inherit through the decedent’s will. Both the magistrate judge and district court agreed 

with the administrative law judge, and the Commissioner argues 

in favor of this interpretation on appeal. In doing so, the Commissioner asserts that intestacy under Florida law “occurs when a beneficiary collects all or a portion of a decedent’s estate in the absence

of a will” and that section 742.17(4) does not implicitly establish 

intestacy rights for a posthumously conceived child that has no 

claims to a decedent’s estate except those created through a will. 

By contrast, Ms. Steele argues that the phrase “unless the 

child has been provided for by the decedent’s will” effectively vests 

such a child with intestate rights if he or she is provided for by the 

decedent’s will. In essence, Ms. Steele argues that section 742.17(4) 

allows a posthumously conceived child to inherit a decedent’s personal property intestate as long as the child is provided for by the 

decedent’s will.

We find that section 742.17(4) is reasonably open to both interpretations. On one hand, section 742.17(4) may be reasonably 

read as limiting the rights of posthumously conceived children to 

property devised in the decedent’s will, i.e., providing no right to 

inherit the decedent’s property intestate. Indeed, the provision of 

Florida’s probate code concerning afterborn heirs only addresses 

children conceived before the decedent’s death. See Fla. Stat. 

§ 732.106. Moreover, as previously mentioned, we also note the 

placement of section 742.17(4) within the Florida code—it is in the 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 10 of 14 RESTRICTED
20-11656 Opinion of the Court 11

title of the Florida code concerning domestic relations, not the probate code. And we note that no Florida court has applied section 

742.17(4) in this manner, although the administrative law judge believed that Florida courts would apply section 742.17(4) in determining a claimant’s intestacy rights given Florida state court precedent.

On the other hand, the phrase “unless the child has been provided for by the decedent’s will” in section 742.17(4) can be reasonably read as a condition for a posthumously conceived child to inherit a share of the decedent’s property intestate. We note that the 

term “unless” is defined as “except on the condition that” or “under 

any other circumstance than.” Unless, Merriam-Webster, 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unless; see Ruiz 

v. Wing, 991 F.3d 1130, 1138 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, in 

analyzing the plain meaning of language, this Court looks “to the 

common usage of words for their meaning”). Thus, a reasonable 

reading of section 742.17(4) is that a posthumously conceived child 

cannot bring an intestate claim against the decedent’s estate except 

if the child has been provided for by the decedent’s will. In other 

words, a posthumously conceived child who is provided for by the 

decedent’s will occupies the same status as a child conceived before

the decedent’s death and thus can inherit through intestacy that 

portion of the decedent’s estate not disposed of by the will. 

Given these two reasonable interpretations of the Florida 

statute at issue, and the lack of Florida case law on the issue, we 

believe it is the better option to certify this dispositive issue to the 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 11 of 14 RESTRICTED
12 Opinion of the Court 20-11656

Florida Supreme Court.2 See WM Mobile Bay, 972 F.3d at 1251; In 

re Mooney, 812 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2016). As a matter of 

federalism and comity, it is often appropriate to certify dispositive 

issues of Florida law to Florida’s highest court for decision. See 

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc. v. Nielsen, 116 F.3d 1406,

1413 (11th Cir. 1997). Indeed, “[c]ertification of state law issues to 

state supreme courts is a valuable tool for promoting the interests 

of cooperative federalism.” Id.

2 In our certification of this question to the Florida Supreme Court, we also 

observe that other provisions of the Florida code may be relevant to the issue. 

As noted above, under Florida Statute § 732.101(1), “[a]ny part of the estate of 

a decedent not effectively disposed of by will passes to the decedent’s heirs,” 

which includes “the descendants of the decedent” under Florida Statute 

§ 732.103(1). Therefore, sections 732.101(1) and 732.101(3) appear to set forth 

another condition that P.S.S. must satisfy to inherit a decedent’s property intestate. And while not explicitly briefed by the parties, it is unclear to us 

whether any Florida provision recognizes a posthumously conceived child as 

a “descendant[] of the decedent.”

For example, Florida Statute § 742.11 provides, in relevant part, that “any child 

born within wedlock who has been conceived by the means of artificial or in 

vitro insemination is irrebuttably presumed to be the child of the husband and 

wife.” (Emphasis added). But, under Florida law, “death, by operation of law, 

. . . terminate[s] the marriage.” See MacLeod v. Hoff, 654 So. 2d 1250, 1251 

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (applying this principle in a divorce proceeding). Another provision, Florida Statute § 732.108(2), applies to “persons born out of 

wedlock,” but it is unclear to us if any of the requirements within this statute

apply to posthumously conceived children, especially because Florida Statute 

§ 732.106 specifically defines “afterborn heirs” (and excludes posthumously 

conceived children from that definition). 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 12 of 14 RESTRICTED
20-11656 Opinion of the Court 13

We therefore certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following questions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.150:3

(1) Under Florida law, is P.S.S. “provided for” in the decedent’s will within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 742.17(4)? 

(2) If the answer is yes, does Florida law authorize a 

posthumously conceived child who is provided 

for in the decedent’s will to inherit intestate the 

decedent’s property?

Our phrasing of these questions “is intended only as a 

guide.” United States v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 1131, 1133 (11th Cir. 

2015). It is not our intention to restrict the Florida Supreme 

Court’s consideration of the issues or its scope of inquiry. See WM 

Mobile Bay, 972 F.3d at 1251. The Florida Supreme Court “may, 

as it perceives them, restate the issues and modify the manner in 

which the answers are given.” Id. And “[i]f we have overlooked 

or mischaracterized any state law issues or inartfully stated any of 

the questions we have posed, we hope the [Florida] Supreme Court 

will feel free to make the necessary corrections.” Id. (quoting Spain 

3 Under article V, section 3(b)(6) of the Florida constitution, the Florida Supreme Court “[m]ay review a question of law certified by the Supreme Court 

of the United States or a United States Court of Appeals which is determinative 

of the cause and for which there is no controlling precedent of the supreme 

court of Florida.” Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.150 establishes the 

procedures governing those discretionary proceedings to review such certified 

questions.

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 13 of 14 RESTRICTED
14 Opinion of the Court 20-11656

v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 230 F.3d 1300, 1312 (11th 

Cir. 2000)).

III. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, we defer our decision in this case until the 

Florida Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider and 

determine whether to exercise its discretion in answering our certified question. The entire record of this case, including the parties’ 

briefs, is transmitted to the Florida Supreme Court. 

QUESTION CERTIFIED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11656 Date Filed: 10/12/2022 Page: 14 of 14 RESTRICTED