Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19760415_0040345.C02.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-21 16:50:14
Document Index: 191381468

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 415', '§ 403', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 402', '§ 404', '§ 405']

| Eisenhauer v. Mathews
Eisenhauer v. Mathews
decided: April 15, 1976.
MARIA EISENHAUER, ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, FRANCIS X. EISENHAUER AND BRIAN F. EISENHAUER, APPELLANT,v.DAVID MATHEWS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, APPELLEE
Appeal from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Walter Bruchhausen, Judge, sustaining the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare reducing the social security survivors benefits entitlement of appellant and her children, wife and legitimate children of deceased wage-earner, as a consequence of the Secretary's approval of survivors benefits to stepchildren of the deceased. Affirmed.
At the time Sonja and Francis E. Eisenhauer began living together Sonja had four children fathered by Andreas Radauscher, Sonja's husband from 1957 until their divorce in March, 1966. A fifth child, Francis E. Eisenhauer, Jr., was conceived prior to the dissolution of Sonja's marriage to Andreas but was born on July 27, 1966, during the period she and the deceased were living together. The paternity of Francis E., Jr., is disputed by the parties herein.*fn1 Sonja bore two more children while she and the deceased lived together and as to these children counsel for appellant stipulates that the deceased wage-earner was the biological father.
On September 23, 1970, Sonja Radauscher Eisenhauer filed an application for survivors benefits on behalf of Francis E., Jr., Sonja L. and Ursula Eisenhauer, the three children she bore while living with the wage-earner, and on April 28, 1972, she filed a claim for benefits on behalf of Monika, Andreas, Erich and Wilhelm Radauscher, the four children she bore while married to Andreas Radauscher. In May, 1972 child's insurance benefits were approved for Francis E., Jr., Sonja and Ursula, retroactive to June, 1970, and for Monika, Erich, Andreas and Wilhelm, retroactive to April, 1972. Because Maria and her two children had been receiving the maximum family benefit allowable under section 215(a), 42 U.S.C. § 415(a), the approval of benefits for Sonja's seven children necessitated a reduction in the benefit entitlement of appellant and her children. 42 U.S.C. § 403(a). After being notified by the Social Security Administration that her family's survivor benefits were to be reduced from almost $400.00 per month to slightly less than $120.00,*fn2 appellant requested a reconsideration. The Reconsideration Determination fully sustained the award of benefits to each of Sonja's seven children and the concomitant reduction of appellant's family benefits. Appellant, challenging the entitlement of each of Sonja's children, appealed this decision administratively and a hearing was held. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Reconsideration Determination and this became the final decision of the Secretary when it was approved by the Social Security Appeals Council.
Appellant argues that the "deemed the stepchild" provision of section 216(e) does not apply in the instant case because section 216(e) implicitly requires the ceremonial marriage be entered in good faith. Good faith, she contends, was absent when Sonja and the deceased purported to marry because both were fully aware that Eisenhauer's prior undissolved marriage precluded him from validly marrying Sonja.*fn3 We find this argument unpersuasive.
"If an applicant is a son or daughter of a fully or currently insured individual but is not (and is not deemed to be) the child of such insured individual under subparagraph (A), such applicant shall nevertheless be deemed to be the child of such insured individual if such insured individual and the mother or father, as the case may be, of such applicant went through a marriage ceremony resulting in a purported marriage between them which, but for a legal impediment described in the last sentence of paragraph (1)(B), would have been a valid marriage." Section 216 (h)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(B).
Appellant seeks support for her argument that a good faith requirement is implicit in section 216(e) in two cases which make reference to the parallel provisions for illegitimate children in section 216(h)(1)(B) and (2)(B). Language in each of these cases, Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628, 635, 41 L. Ed. 2d 363, 94 S. Ct. 2496 (1974) and Moots v. Secretary, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 349 F.2d 518, 521 (4th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996, 15 L. Ed. 2d 483, 86 S. Ct. 582 (1966) assumes that illegitimates are denied the status of child under the ceremonial marriage provisions of section 216(h)(1)(B) and (2)(B) absent good faith on the part of the parents. In neither of these cases, however, was the issue before the Court. In Jimenez the Supreme Court found that the provisions of the Act which control the entitlement of afterborn illegitimates to benefits as a result of the parent's disability irrationally discriminated against some illegitimate children. The question whether good faith is an essential element of a claim under any of the ceremonial marriage provisions conferring the status of child was not at issue. The Court's passing reference in dictum to "formal, non-obvious defects in their parents' ceremonial marriage," 417 U.S. at 635, can hardly be construed as a holding that the absence of good faith on the part of the parents disqualifies the child claimant. Dictum in Moots is no more compelling. Since the benefit applicant in Moots did not even establish that a ceremonial marriage took place, it cannot fairly be said that the issue of good faith was actually considered.
Appellant cites Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 45 L. Ed. 2d 522, 95 S. Ct. 2457 (1975), for the proposition that preventing the use of sham marriages to obtain Social Security benefits is fundamental to the Act. In Salfi the Court upheld the nine-month duration-of-relationship requirements in section 216(c)(5) and (e)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 416(c)(5) and (e)(2). The instant appeal, unlike that in Salfi, does not call into question the legislature's ability to fashion prophylactic rules to avoid spurious claims. Appellant does not ask to enforce a legislatively mandated requirement but asks that additional requirements be imposed. The Act draws a clear distinction between spouse and child benefit eligibility resulting from a ceremonial marriage. As to the former, Congress imposed a good faith requirement and denied eligibility to persons entering a purported marriage with knowledge of its invalidity; as to the latter such restrictive language is entirely absent.
As we have noted, the Social Security Act is to be accorded a liberal application in consonance with its remedial and humanitarian aims. Adams v. Weinberger, 521 F.2d 656, 659 (2d Cir. 1975); Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 463 F.2d 38, 41 (2d Cir. 1972); Haberman v. Finch, 418 F.2d 664, 667 (2d Cir. 1969). Were we to adopt the restrictive construction of section 216(e) advocated by the appellant, children who are innocent of any lack of good faith on the part of the parent would be disentitled to benefits regardless of their dependency upon the insured.*fn4 Such a result runs counter to the principles which govern our interpretation of the Act and the language of the statute. The Secretary's interpretation that section 216(e) applies to confer the status of stepchild without reference to the motives attending the parents' ceremonial marriage is correct.
Appellant raises a second challenge to the award of benefits to Sonja's children by her first marriage. Mrs. Eisenhauer contends that even if the Secretary correctly deemed the Radauscher children to be stepchildren of the deceased wage-earner, they nonetheless fail to satisfy the dependency requirements of section 202(d)(1)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1)(C). Section 202(d)(1)(C) provides that every child (as defined in section 216(e)) of an individual who dies fully or currently insured shall be entitled to child's insurance benefits if, among other things, such child was dependent upon the insured at the time of the insured's death. Section 202(d)(4), however, creates a statutory presumption of dependency. That section provides:
The "deemed dependent" provision is written in the disjunctive; a child, to be deemed dependent, must have been living with or receiving one-half of his support from the insured stepparent. By this disjunctive language, then, dependency is statutorily presumed if the child was living with the stepparent or was actually dependent upon the stepparent. Actual dependency, contrary to appellant's assertions, need not be shown if stepparent and child were living together at the time of the insured stepparent's death.*fn5
Initially the appellant conceded that the deceased was living with Sonja and the seven children. Later, however, she asserted that Mr. Eisenhauer and Sonja did not live together but instead would rendezvous from time to time. To support this allegation appellant relies on a statement made by the deceased on his application for a marriage license that he resided in New York. Sonja's home, in which the deceased held no property interest, is in New Jersey. Appellant also relies on a default judgment she obtained in the New York Supreme Court declaring the deceased to have been a resident of Queens, New York at the time of his death. With that judgment appellant secured an amendment of the deceased's death certificate to reflect the Queens address.*fn6 The death certificate originally showed the deceased's residence to be Sonja's New Jersey home. Rebutting this evidence is the 1969 tax-return filed by the deceased which represents his residence during the last year of his life as Sonja's New Jersey home. Also, upon Sonja's application for benefits on behalf of her three youngest children an investigation was conducted by the Bureau of Retirement and Survivor's Benefits which determined that "all facts in the file establish that the wage earner was living with or supporting and fathering the children."
Appellant argues that 20 C.F.R. § 404.1113, promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to rule-making authority conferred by section 205(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(a), requires a finding that the deceased exercised, or had the right to exercise, parental control over the children whose benefits she disputes. The regulation defines the term "living with" for purposes of the deemed dependent provision of section 202(d)(4) as including this control element.*fn7 There was no specific finding by the Secretary as to control because the appellant, who bore the burden of refuting the children's eligibility, introduced no evidence indicating such control was absent. The eligibility of Sonja's children is presumptively valid and remains so until evidence is introduced rebutting their prima facie entitlement. With the competing claims against the deceased's account so postured, the Secretary was not required to make a specific finding that Sonja's children by her prior marriage were subject to the control of the deceased.