Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Posthumously conceived kids not entitled to benefits, rules US high court

Posthumously conceived kids not entitled to benefits, rules US high court

Listen to this article

The Social Security Administration reasonably interpreted federal law in determining that only children supported by a deceased wage earner in his or her lifetime are entitled to Social Security benefits, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

Children conceived by in vitro fertilization years after the parent’s death may not collect benefits.

The case involved a claim for Social Security benefits by the mother of two children conceived years after their father died of cancer.

The application was denied and the mother appealed, arguing that the children fit within the definition of “child” under the Social Security Act because they were the biological children of the wage earner.

An administrative law judge affirmed the denial, holding that neither qualified as a “child” under the statute, a decision based in part on Florida intestacy law. A federal district court affirmed the ruling.

But the 3rd Circuit reversed, holding that there was no need to resort to state intestacy law when it was undisputed that the twins were the biological children of the plaintiff and her husband.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and reversed the 3rd Circuit in a unanimous decision.

After an extensive examination of the text of the statute and the regulations promulgated under it by the Social Security Administration, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote: “The SSA’s interpretation of the relevant provisions, adhered to without deviation for many decades, is at least reasonable; the agency’s reading is therefore entitled to this Court’s deference.”

“Tragic circumstances – Robert Capato’s death before he and his wife could raise a family – gave rise to this case. But the law Congress enacted calls for resolution of Karen Capato’s application for child’s insurance benefits by reference to state intestacy law,” Ginsburg wrote. “We cannot replace that reference by creating a uniform federal rule the statute’s text scarcely supports.”

U.S. Supreme Court. Astrue v. Capato, No. 11-159.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests