Capato v. Commissioner was decided in favor of the twins in the Third Circuit and the Supremes have granted Certiorari.
This is again a case where science may be outrunning the law as written. Here is what happened: Mr. Capato was dying of cancer. He and the Mrs. preserved his seed for later use. He died. She then conceived, 18 months after his death, by IVF, twins; his biological children, no doubt.
On behalf of the twins, Mrs. C. filed for SS survivors’ bennies.
The claim was administratively rejected, then rejected by a USDC.
The 3d Circuit reversed and remanded for a fact finding.
This is a statutory, not a constitutional, case. I believe the Supremes can reverse and render the Circuit, from my reading of the statute, and I am dubious as to the relevancy of the case law the Circuit cited.
The relevant part of the statute as quoted by the Circuit:
…the child (a) must have filed an application for benefits, (b) must be unmarried and less than eighteen years old (or an elementary or secondary school student under nineteen), and (c) must have been dependent upon the deceased individual at the time of his or her death. Id. §§ 402(d)(1)(A)-(C). [at p. 6].
************************************
The Circuit remanded to the District Court for a fact finding about dependency:
…are the undisputed biological children of a deceased wage earner and his widow children, within the meaning of the Act? The answer is a resounding ―Yes.‖ Accordingly, we will vacate the order of the District Court in part and remand for a determination of whether, as of the date of Mr. Capato‘s death, his children were dependent or deemed dependent on him, the final requisite of the Act remaining to be satisfied.6
********************************************
HOW can a fact finder deem the children conceived 18 mos. after his death to be dependent upon him at the time of his death, when they did not exist in any sense of the word? Seems to me these twins are cut off as a matter of law.
This Court did seem to claim that these children were protected under a “liberal construction” of the law, and here that is not a political statement but a reference to a statute that is supposed to be interpreted liberally in favor of the beneficiary, in its own terms. I quote:
The purpose of federal child insurance benefits is not to provide general welfare benefits, but to replace the support that the child would have received from his father had the father not died. Jones ex rel. Jones v. Chater, 101 F.3d 509, 514 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 507-08 (1976)); see also Adams v. Weinberger, 521 F.2d 656, 659 (2d Cir. 1975) (the purpose of the Act is to provide support to children who have lost actual‖or anticipated‖ support). In general, the [Act] is to be accorded a liberal application in consonance with its remedial and humanitarian aims. Eisenhauer v. Mathews, 535 F.2d 681, 686 (2d Cir. 1976).
********************************************
To me, either they are protected under this liberal interpretation of the law as a matter of law, or they are not, as a matter of law. I think they are not, but most important from my view is I do not think that there could be any relevant facts that bear on the decision. It must be a matter of law, IMHO.
Ashot? QB? Any thoughts? If the Supremes took this one, they must have something to say.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 144 Comments »