The claimant’s mother, Jeannette Luke, applied for child’s social security insurance benefits on the worker’s record after the worker died. She alleged that the deceased worker, Gary J. Groth, was the child’s father. Although Groth died in a hospital in Minnesota, he was domiciled in South Dakota at the time of his death.

Luke and Groth lived together out of wedlock for a period of time. Before they began living together, Groth had a vasectomy. Evidence showed that vasectomies are successful in 399 out of 400 cases, or 99.75% of the time. Nevertheless, Luke became pregnant a few months after she began living with Groth.

Groth signed an acknowledgment of paternity, stating the child was his. However, a couple of months after the child was born, his physician performed a medical test which showed there was no sperm in his semen.

For a period of time, the child received VA benefits on Groth’s record. But Groth later objected to this. Moreover, when Groth applied for disability benefits for himself, he stated in his application that he had no minor children. Luke received AFDC (welfare) benefits for the child. The local department of social services initiated a paternity suit against Goth. Goth hired an attorney, but died before he was able to file an answer to the suit.

Held: the claimant was not entitled to child’s insurance benefits because there was clear and convincing evidence, in the form of Goth’s vasectomy, that he could not have been the child’s biological father. Therefore, the child could not have inherited from Goth under South Dakota’s intestate laws, because he was not Goth’s biological nor adopted child. This clear and convincing evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of paternity raised by Goth’s signing of a document acknowledging he was the father. The administrative law judge and district court’s rulings were therefore supported by substantial evidence, and were affirmed.

See Luke for Luke v. Bowen, 868 F.2d 974 (8th Cir. 1989).

See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 89-9c.

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.