Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/658/641/50718/
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 10:51:35
Document Index: 632070036

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 402', '§ 402', '§ 416', '§ 61', '§ 404', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416']

Katie M. Fulton, As Mother and Natural Guardian on Behalf Ofrosie Huggins and Maxine Huggins, Minors over Theage of Fourteen, Appellant, v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health, Education Andwelfare of the United States, or Her Successor Orsuccessors in Office, Appellee, 658 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1981 › Katie M. Fulton, As Mother and Natural Guardian on Behalf Ofrosie Huggins and Maxine Huggins, Minors...
Katie M. Fulton, As Mother and Natural Guardian on Behalf Ofrosie Huggins and Maxine Huggins, Minors over Theage of Fourteen, Appellant, v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health, Education Andwelfare of the United States, or Her Successor Orsuccessors in Office, Appellee, 658 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1981)
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 658 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1981) Submitted June 15, 1981. Decided Sept. 15, 1981
Katie M. Fulton, mother and natural guardian of Rosie Huggins, appeals the order of the district court, 498 F. Supp. 1076, granting summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who denied appellant's claim for child's insurance benefits for Rosie. We reverse the district court's decision and order the entry of summary judgment for appellant.
Appellant filed the instant claim on behalf of her daughters1 on February 11, 1977.2 After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Huggins was Rosie's natural father,3 but "was not either living with or contributing to (her) support at the time of his death or over any reasonable period preceding death." Thus, the ALJ determined that Rosie was not entitled to child's benefits on the earnings record of Eddie Huggins since she was not dependent on him at the time of his death. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) (1) (C) (ii). The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's decision denying Rosie benefits on October 12, 1978. Appellant now appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming the denial of benefits.
In addressing appellant's contention that her daughter is entitled to child's insurance benefits, we note initially that under the statute a child is deemed dependent on the deceased wage earner unless the child is illegitimate and is not living with the insured parent or is not receiving support from that parent. 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) (3) (A). A child is deemed legitimate and, consequently, dependent if she may inherit personal property from the insured parent under the law of the state where that parent was domiciled at the time of his death.4 Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 514-15 n.17, 96 S. Ct. 2755, 2766-67 n.17, 49 L. Ed. 2d 651 (1976); 42 U.S.C. § 416(h) (2) (A). Thus, to determine whether Rosie was deemed dependent on her father, we must examine the Arkansas statute governing descent and distribution, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 61-141(d), that was in effect at the time of Eddie Huggins' death. That statute provided:
In Lucas v. Handcock, 583 S.W.2d 491 (Ark. en banc 1979), the Arkansas court declared this statute unconstitutional5 as a result of Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S. Ct. 1459, 52 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1977), in which the Supreme Court held that a nearly identical Illinois intestacy provision violated the equal protection clause. In Lucas, the court applied Trimble retroactively to allow an illegitimate child to take an intestate share of his grandfather's estate. Although the deceased died before Trimble was decided, the court found that litigation to which the child was a party was pending at the time of the Trimble decision and therefore concluded that the child could take the share to which his father would have been entitled had he survived the deceased. The Arkansas court did not deviate from this position in Frakes v. Hunt, 583 S.W.2d 497 (Ark. en banc 1979), and Compton v. White, 587 S.W.2d 829 (Ark.1979), in which it refused to give retroactive effect to Trimble because the fathers of the illegitimate children died before the date of the Trimble decision and no litigation to which the children were a party was pending at that time.
Appellant in the instant case applied for child benefits on Rosie's behalf on February 11, 1977, two and one-half months before Trimble was decided.6 The final decision of the Secretary was not rendered until October 12, 1978. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981 (1981). Because it is clear from these circumstances that appellant's claim for child benefits was pending at the time Trimble was decided, we must apply the rule enunciated in Trimble to the instant case. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 625-27, 85 S. Ct. 1731, 1735-36, 14 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1965); United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110, 2 L. Ed. 49 (1801); Flanigan v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 632 F.2d 880, 887-89 (8th Cir. 1980); Lucas v. Handcock, supra, 583 S.W.2d at 491.
In Point II of its brief, the government argues that appellant failed to establish that Rosie was dependent on her father at the time of his death because she did not show that Rosie was the child of a marriage rendered invalid by some legal impediment, 42 U.S.C. § 416(h) (2) (B); or that Huggins had acknowledged in writing that Rosie was his daughter, 42 U.S.C. § 416(h) (3) (A) (i) (I); had been decreed Rosie's father by a court, 42 U.S.C. § 416(h) (3) (A) (i) (II); or had been ordered to contribute to Rosie's support, 42 U.S.C. § 416(h) (3) (A) (i) (III). Although it is true that a child will be deemed dependent if any one of these conditions is met, appellee's contention that the statutory scheme makes these criteria the exclusive means of proving dependency was rejected by the Supreme Court in Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628, 631 n.2, 634, 94 S. Ct. 2496, 2499 n.2, 2500, 41 L. Ed. 2d 363 (1974). See Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 514-15 n.17, 96 S. Ct. 2755, 2766-67 n.17, 49 L. Ed. 2d 651 (1976)
Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S. Ct. 1459, 52 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1977), was decided on April 26, 1977