[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    If this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling is later rescinded as 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)<SUP>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.<SUP>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