Schafer v. Astrue
641 F.3d 49
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Don Schafer died in 1993; W.M.S. is his posthumous biological child born in 2000 via IVF, conceived after death; Virginia ten-month intestacy rule prevents W.M.S. from inheriting for §416(e) purposes under VA law; SSA denied survivorship benefits to W.M.S. based on intestacy status; SSA requires applying state intestacy law to determine 'child' status under §416(h); district court affirmed SSA decision; Schafer appeals arguing §416(e)(1) plain language includes undisputed biological children regardless of intestacy, and posthumous conception should be covered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is posthumously conceived biological child covered under §416(e)(1) independent of state intestacy law? | Schafer: §416(e)(1) plain language includes undisputed biological children. | Astrue: §416(h) channels, via intestacy, determine child status; §416(e) does not independently confer status. | Affirmative: SSA interpretation through §416(h) and intestacy law governs; posthumous child not covered. |
| Does §416(h)(2)(A) require applying state intestacy law to all child determinations under §416(e)? | Schafer: §416(h) should not trump §416(e) for undisputed biological children. | Astrue: §416(h)(2)(A) provides intestacy framework for determining child status. | Yes: §416(h)(2)(A) governs; apply state intestacy rules to determine child status. |
| Is SSA's Chevron-based deference appropriate to sustain the interpretation? | Schafer: deference should not validate an interpretation that ignores §416(e)’s plain language. | Astrue: Chevron deference warranted; interpretation reasonable and consistent with statute’s purpose. | Yes: Chevron deference supports SSA’s interpretation. |
| Does the Act’s purpose and history support the SSA’s interpretation over Schafer’s view? | Schafer: Congress intended §416(e) to cover undisputed biological children. | Astrue: History shows §416(h) backbone, applying intestacy framework. | Yes: purposes/history favor SSA interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capato ex rel. B.N.C. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2011) (posthumously conceived children fall under §416(h) pathways)
- Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2004) (§416(h) governs child status; not limited to disputed parentage)
- Conlon v. Heckler, 719 F.2d 798 (5th Cir. 1983) (§416(h) framework; §416(e) not sole definition)
- Javier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 407 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (state intestacy law governs child relationships for benefits)
- DeSonier v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1990) (determination of family status via state intestacy law)
- Elm Grove Coal Co. v. Dir., O.W.C.P., 480 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2007) (statutory construction and purpose considerations in Chevron analysis)