From MacNeil v. Berryhill (CA2) decided on August 24, 2017:
... Sharon MacNeil (“MacNeil”) brought suit ... challenging a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that her children—twins conceived via in vitro fertilization eleven years after her husband died—were ineligible for survivors’ insurance benefits. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, J.) affirmed the agency’s decision, concluding that under the applicable provisions of New York’s Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (“EPTL”) the children were not entitled to inherit under New York state intestacy law, and so were not children of the deceased wage earner within the meaning of the relevant Social Security Act provisions. We agree and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. ...
10 comments:
Rightfully so. ..its a No brainer!
Is this one of those "rules against perpetuities" issues from 1L property class?
Rule against perpetuities has nothing to do with it. Its all about State Law as per Capato. If State provides for intestate inheritance for after born children, then benefits are payable.
Not a no brainer at all.
Sure State law can always be argued but what legs do the argument stand on... when it comes to the wishes of a man that's been dead over a decade? Who really wanted a kid...the widow or the dead man on the countries dime? I say it's a weak argument at best... at least show us a Will or some or semblance of his Wishes other than...WE are having a baby...do you pay out for this...WHO ARE YOU...the SURVIVOR...the claimant...or someone that can have as many of your dead husbands kids and the American taxpayer has to foot the bill each time?
I remember a similar case out of the Ninth Circuit, which somehow had to deal with the state law of Florida. As I recall, the claimant filed for benefits in Florida and then moved to a Ninth Circuit state.
@2:09
Total Survivor's benefits paid to descendants are limited to 150% of the deceased's benefits as the SSA has instituted a maximum family benefit. Your concern that widows are going to produce an inordinate number of children posthumously is unfounded.
Agree the law is applied properly. Just wondering how does SSA come up with these arbitrary number of years.
1. The 2-year (and 5 months) waiting period for Medicare.
2. The fact widow or widower benes only awarded to those disabled between 50 and 62 and must be disabled within 7 years of the death of the wage earner.
3. A person must be married 10 or more years to be entitled to the other wage earner's regular SS.
I could go on and on. Has there ever been any studies or justifications for some of my above examples.
I would love to know how Congress came up with the Medicare 2-year waiting period. I personally asked Astrue twice this question at a NOSSCR conference (2 separate conferences). He had no good answer. The Medicare waiting period is the biggest arbitrary, bogus rule in the entire SSA rules of law.
@ 10:59
They could if they staggered the children. I'm not saying I agree with that poster, but a widow could theoretically keep having kids with frozen material from the husband over the course of 20+ years, greatly extending the time for which she and the family are paid that 150% max. Just throwing that out there, kind of like the absurd fertile octogenarian or unborn widow.
@4:15
Ha! Touche.
The bottom line social security should not be supporting your personal sperm bank so you can have generations of maxed out checks
Exactly. .possibly even 180% !
Post a Comment