[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    If this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling is later rescinded as 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),<SUP>1</SUP> 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.<SUP>2</SUP> 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.''<SUP>3</SUP> 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.'''<SUP>4</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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