Kathleen Steele v. Commissioner of Social Security
51 F.4th 1059
11th Cir.2022Background:
- Philip Steele cryopreserved sperm before his death; his widow Kathleen used it for posthumous IVF, producing P.S.S., born 17 months after Steele’s death.
- Steele had a will that listed living children and stated that “children” and “lineal descendants” include those later born.
- Kathleen applied for Child’s Insurance Benefits (CIB) under the Social Security Act on behalf of P.S.S.; SSA denied the claim for failure to meet dependency and “child” definition requirements.
- ALJ, magistrate judge, and district court all concluded P.S.S. could not inherit intestate under Florida law, relying on Fla. Stat. § 742.17(4) (posthumously conceived child not eligible for claim against estate unless provided for by will).
- The Eleventh Circuit found § 742.17(4) reasonably susceptible to two interpretations and, because Florida law on the point is unsettled, certified dispositive questions to the Florida Supreme Court rather than resolving the case.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Stat. § 742.17(4)’s phrase “unless the child has been provided for by the decedent’s will” means a posthumously conceived child provided for in the will may inherit intestate | Steele: “Unless” creates a condition—if the child is provided for by will, the child can inherit intestate like other heirs | Commissioner: §742.17(4) limits posthumous children to will-based recovery only; it does not create intestacy rights | Court: Statute is ambiguous; certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court for authoritative interpretation |
| Whether P.S.S. was “provided for” in Steele’s will such that any intestacy rights would arise | Steele: Will’s catchall language treating later-born children as included plus birth certificate and letters support that P.S.S. was provided for | Commissioner: Will did not specifically provide for P.S.S.; administrative findings did not show decedent intended to provide intestate rights | Court: Did not decide; left factual/legal determination to Florida Supreme Court as part of certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Astrue v. Capato ex rel. B.N.C., 566 U.S. 541 (2012) (defines “child” for CIB and directs application of state intestacy law under §416(h)(2)(A))
- WM Mobile Bay Env’t Ctr., Inc. v. City of Mobile Solid Waste Auth., 972 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2020) (supports certifying unsettled state-law questions to state supreme court)
- Paresky v. United States, 995 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2021) (statutory-interpretation methodology: start with plain language)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc. v. Nielsen, 116 F.3d 1406 (11th Cir. 1997) (discusses comity and certification to state courts)
- In re Mooney, 812 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016) (certification procedures and federalism considerations)