Opinion ID: 692341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Burden of Proof and Presumption of Death

Text: 15 Title Two of the Social Security Act provides for the payment of insurance benefits to the child of an individual who dies a fully or currently insured individual. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 402(d)(1). Where the claimant for such benefits cannot establish the individual's death, see 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.720 (1990), the person will be presumed dead based upon submission of the following evidence: 16 (a) A certified copy of, or extract from, an official report or finding by an agency or department of the United States that a missing person is presumed to be dead as set out in Federal law (5 U.S.C. Sec. 5565).... 17 (b) Signed statements by those in a position to know and other records which show that the person has been absent from his or her residence for no apparent reason, and has not been heard from, for at least 7 years.... 18 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.721. 19 The parties in this case dispute how the burden of production should be allocated between them in determining whether a person should be presumed dead. In his decision, the ALJ stated: In order for there to be a presumption of death, the absence must be unexplained. Mrs. Green contends that she is required to show only that the missing person has been absent for seven years for the presumption to apply. The burden then shifts to the Secretary, she argues, to prove that the individual is alive or to provide an explanation to account for the individual's absence in a manner consistent with continued life. The Secretary, on the other hand, interprets Sec. 404.721(b) to place the burden of production on the claimant to show that the insured person has not been heard from for at least seven years and that he has been absent for no apparent reason before the presumption is invoked. 20 The courts of appeals that have addressed this issue 2 have all accepted the interpretation advocated by Mrs. Green. Indeed, the Secretary has issued acquiescence rulings, agreeing to abide by that standard for claimants residing in those circuits. 3 However, the Secretary continues to adhere to her original interpretation of Sec. 404.721(b) in cases arising in the Seventh Circuit. 4 The Secretary contends that her interpretation should be accorded great deference and that it is appropriate to rest the burden of establishing that the wage earner's disappearance is unexplainable on the claimant because the family member is in possession of the facts. 21 An agency's interpretation of its own regulation must be given controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 2386, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994) (citations omitted). Therefore, the court must defer to the Secretary's interpretation unless an alternative reading is compelled by the regulation's plain language or by other indications of the Secretary's intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation. Id. (quoting Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430, 108 S.Ct. 1306, 1314, 99 L.Ed.2d 515 (1988)). Deference, however, is not synonymous with acquiescence, Batanic v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 12 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir.1993), and requires us to accept only those agency interpretations that are reasonable in light of the principles of construction courts normally employ. Pettibone Corp. v. United States, 34 F.3d 536, 541 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 260, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 1236-37, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)). 22 Other courts of appeals, in rejecting the Secretary's interpretation, have relied upon two principal arguments. First, it is widely agreed that the Secretary's regulation should be interpreted consistent with the common law origin of the presumption of death. Brewster v. Sullivan, 972 F.2d 898, 902 (8th Cir.1992); Edwards v. Califano, 619 F.2d 865, 869 (10th Cir.1980) (noting that agency's interpretation of its own regulation is not entitled to great deference where regulation is based on general common law principles rather than on agency's own expertise); Johnson v. Califano, 607 F.2d 1178, 1182 n. 10 (6th Cir.1979). At common law, a presumption of death arose after a person's seven-year absence. The purpose of the presumption was to lessen the burden on those individuals whose affairs were affected by the missing person's indefinite absence to the same degree as if that person were dead. See Brewster, 972 F.2d at 902; Blew v. Richardson, 484 F.2d 889, 892 n. 6 (7th Cir.1973). Second, courts have held that the Secretary's position defeats the very purpose of the presumption since it creates a presumption of life rather than of death. Brewster, 972 F.2d at 902; Shelnutt v. Heckler, 723 F.2d 1131, 1133 (3d Cir.1983); Autrey v. Harris, 639 F.2d 1233, 1234 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981) (per curiam); Johnson, 607 F.2d at 1182; Secretary of Health, Educ. & Welfare v. Meza, 368 F.2d 389, 392 (9th Cir.1966). Under the Secretary's interpretation, it is argued, the claimant must refute every reasonable theory which may be potentially present, a nearly impossible burden of proof. Johnson, 607 F.2d at 1182. 23 Although this court has never addressed the issue directly, our analysis in Blew v. Richardson, 484 F.2d 889 (7th Cir.1973), which discusses the use of pre-departure facts to provide an explanation other than death for a person's disappearance, supports Mrs. Green's approach. The court in Blew noted that the Secretary's regulation is based on the common law presumption. It then explained the burden of proof as follows: 24 The evidence which raises the presumption is proof that Ballard was absent and unheard of for a period of seven years after November 15, 1958. The evidence on which the Secretary relies to rebut that presumption concerns events on or before November 15, 1958. 25 Id. at 892. 26 We see no reason to depart from the common-sense course chosen by the circuits that have confronted the issue squarely. The Secretary's traditional position, as opposed to the one she follows in those circuits that have rejected that position and the one she now proposes in the new regulation, places an untenable burden on the claimant to disprove every possible explanation for the missing person's absence. We are unpersuaded by the Secretary's arguments and hold that, under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.721, a rebuttable presumption of death is raised once the claimant establishes a seven-year absence. If, however, the Secretary comes forward with evidence to explain the missing person's absence in a manner consistent with continued life, the burden of production has been satisfied and the presumption is rebutted. Once the presumed fact--that the missing person is dead--has been effectively rebutted, the presumption ceases to exist. Aubrey v. Richardson, 462 F.2d 782, 784 (3d Cir.1972) (citing Gardner v. Wilcox, 370 F.2d 492, 494 (9th Cir.1966)). 5 The factfinder must then weigh all the evidence, recognizing that the burden of persuasion on the existence of the presumed fact remains with the party originally invoking the presumption. Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co., 744 F.2d 1564, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1984); Mando v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 737 F.2d 278, 282 (2d Cir.1984). 27 Mrs. Green presented evidence that her husband had neither been seen nor heard from for more than seven years. Thus, she was entitled to invoke the presumption of death. However, because there was other evidence suggesting that Mr. Green simply had abandoned his family because of financial and legal troubles, the presumption was rebutted and Mrs. Green had to bear the burden of persuasion. We therefore examine whether the record supports the position of the Secretary.