The Secretary of Health and Human Services (who formerly oversaw the Social Security Administration — now it is overseen by the Commissioner of Social Security) paid survivor’s benefits in the 1980’s to a woman and her son and daughter based on her deceased ex-husband’s work record. The worker died in Louisiana.

Because of the award of these benefits, the Secretary reduced survivor’s benefits to the deceased worker’s second wife and her children. (This is because there is a family maximum amount of benefits that can be paid based on one person’s work record). In addition, the Secretary notified the second wife that she had been overpaid.

The second wife appealed this decision, but the decision was upheld by an administrative law judge following a hearing. She then appealed to federal district court. In her appeal, the plaintiff argued that the first wife’s son was not her deceased husband’s biological child, even though he was listed as the child’s father on the birth certificate. In the first wife’s divorce case, there was only one child — the daughter — listed as belonging to both parties. Moreover, during the divorce, the first wife had stated that her husband was not in fact her son’s biological father, even though her son had been born during the marriage and her husband was listed as the child’s father on the birth certificate.

The Court was tasked with deciding whether the child was the deceased worker’s son, pursuant to social security’s laws and regulations. In making this determination, the applicable statute required the Court to look to Louisiana law; specifically, to determine whether or not the child qualified to inherit personal property from the decedent under that state’s intestate laws. The Court determined that the law in Louisiana at the time the child was born was controlling. This is because, although there had been subsequent amendments to the law, these had not been made specifically retroactive.

The applicable law in Louisiana stated that a child born during a marriage was presumed to be the legitimate offspring of both the husband and wife. The only way this presumption could be overcome was for the husband to timely and successfully disavow paternity in a court proceeding. The decedent had never done this.

Held: The administrative law judge ‘s ruling was correct. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied and defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

Kenney v. Bowen, 1A Unempl. Ins. Rep. (CHC) ¶ 14,447A (E.D. of La., Feb. 29th, 1988).

See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 89-8c.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.