MacNeil v. Berryhill
869 F.3d 109
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Sharon MacNeil used her deceased husband Eric’s stored sperm to conceive twins via IVF 11 years after his death; twins born Feb. 14, 2008.
- MacNeil applied for child’s survivors’ benefits from SSA based on Eric’s earnings; SSA denied because under New York intestacy law at the time, posthumously conceived children who were conceived after death did not inherit.
- ALJ and SSA Appeals Council affirmed denial; district court adopted magistrate R&R and affirmed; MacNeil appealed to the Second Circuit.
- Governing federal rule: SSA applies state intestacy law to determine who is a “child” for survivors’ benefits, and applies the version of state law most favorable to the applicant within specified temporal bounds.
- Disputed New York provisions: EPTL § 4-1.1(c) (treats children conceived before death but born after as if born in lifetime) and EPTL § 4-1.2 (establishes legitimacy and paternity by clear and convincing evidence, including genetic tests).
- New York later enacted EPTL § 4-1.3 (2014) specifically addressing inheritance by children conceived via assisted reproductive technology with time/consent limits; not in effect at SSA’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children conceived after insured’s death can be “children” for SSA survivors’ benefits under NY intestacy law | MacNeil: § 4‑1.2 permits genetic children to inherit if paternity is proven by genetic testing, regardless of timing of conception | SSA: § 4‑1.1(c) expressly covers only those conceived before death and born after; § 4‑1.2 does not expand class temporally | Held: NY law (as of 2013) did not permit posthumously conceived children who were conceived after death to inherit by intestacy; benefits denial affirmed |
| Whether § 4‑1.2’s paternity provisions override § 4‑1.1’s temporal limits | MacNeil: § 4‑1.2’s clear‑and‑convincing/genetic test language allows inheritance by genetic children irrespective of timing | SSA: § 4‑1.2 defines legitimacy but does not alter who qualifies as a distributee at death; temporal rule remains in § 4‑1.1 | Held: § 4‑1.2 does not displace § 4‑1.1(c); legislative history and statutory scheme preclude MacNeil’s reading |
| Whether SSA applied correct state‑law version and interpretation | MacNeil: argued alternate readings and asked certification to NY Court of Appeals | SSA: applied the version of EPTL in effect at time of decision; no need to certify | Held: SSA applied proper law/version; certification unnecessary given clear precedent and subsequent enactment of § 4‑1.3 |
| Whether equitable or policy considerations (dependence, injustice) require different outcome | MacNeil: policy favors genetic children who would have benefited from decedent’s earnings | SSA: Social Security Act uses intestacy as administrable proxy; Congress left family‑law choices to states | Held: Courts must apply statutory text and precedent; policy arguments for Congress/legislature, not judicial relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Astrue v. Capato ex rel. B.N.C., 566 U.S. 541 (2012) (upholding SSA’s use of state intestacy law to define “child” for survivors’ benefits and noting varying state rules on posthumous conception)
- Pollard v. Halter, 377 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Social Security Commissioner legal questions)
- Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977) (background rule that succession and heirship are determined as of decedent’s death; interest‑fixing rationale)
- In re Bump’s Will, 234 N.Y. 60 (1922) (New York rule that heirs are those alive at testator’s death)