Rowe v. Finch, 13964.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 13964.,13964. |
| Citation | 427 F.2d 417 |
| Parties | Cecil ROWE, on behalf of Dewanna S. Rowe, Infant, Appellee, v. Robert H. FINCH, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
William D. Appler, Atty., Dept. of Justice (William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Rosenthal, and Raymond D. Battocchi, Attys., Dept. of Justice, and Milton J. Ferguson, U. S. Atty., on brief) for appellant.
Charles T. Bailey, Logan, W. Va., for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge, and RUSSELL, District Judge:
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether, under § 202(d) (8) (D) of the Social Security Act, separate child's insurance benefits are available to the adopted child of a disabled wage earner where adoption proceedings did not begin until after commencement of disability and the child did not live with the wage earner at the commencement of disability, but the child did live with the wage earner at the time he first became entitled to disability benefits. The District Court, 304 F.Supp. 221, held that the claimant was entitled to such benefits, but we disagree.
Cecil Rowe became disabled in January 1965 and became entitled to disability benefits in August 1965 after the expiration of the statutory six-month waiting period. In March 1965, Rowe's granddaughter left her husband and brought her daughter, Rowe's great-granddaughter, into Rowe's home where the child has lived ever since. Subsequently, adoption proceedings were instituted which were completed in March 1967, whereupon this application for child insurance benefits was filed.
The pertinent portions of § 202(d) (8) (D) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) (8) (D), set forth in the margin,1 provide that benefits shall be payable on behalf of a legally adopted child when the formal adoption is completed within the twenty-four-month period beginning with the month after the month in which the wage earner becomes entitled to the payment of disability benefits, provided that the adoption proceedings were commenced during or before the month in which the disability began or the adopted child was living with the wage earner "in such month."2
The plain meaning of the statute seems to us to be that child benefits will be payable if, before or during the month in which the parent's disability arose, the adoption proceedings had been commenced or, even if the formal proceedings had not been commenced, the child had actually been brought in the wage earner's home to live. This is a rational scheme evidencing a congressional intention to provide for such payments on behalf of the adopted child provided there was some evidence that adoption was intended or was at least seriously contemplated at the time of disability. If the child was living in the home or if legal adoption proceedings had been commenced at the time the disability arose, it could safely be assumed that the adoptive intent was sincere and was not an afterthought contrived to increase the amount of public support available to the family unit.3
We find no such rational scheme in support of the interpretation appellant urges upon us, that "such month" refers to the month of entitlement, not the month of disability. It is true that the words "such month" in subsection (ii) might be thought referable to the month in which disability payments first became payable if subsection (i), allowing separate child payments if adoption proceedings had been instituted in or before the month of disability, is omitted as an irrelevance and subsection (ii) is construed without reference to it. Such an interpretation, however, premised on nothing more than the fact that subsections (i) and (ii) are separated by the disjunctive "or," only introduces ambiguity which is not otherwise present.
Our reading of the statute, that the proper referent for "such month" contained in subsection (ii) is "the month in which began the period of disability" contained in subsection (i), is strongly supported by the legislative history.4 The version of § 202(d) (8) (D) initially passed by the House had no subsections and required only that the child be adopted within two years of the month in which the adopting parent became entitled to disability insurance benefits. The two subsections, (i) and (ii) were introduced in the Senate, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayburg v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 84-1022
...medical expense coverage for all qualifying individuals. Rodriguez v. Celebrezze, 349 F.2d 494, 496 (1st Cir.1965); Rowe v. Finch, 427 F.2d 417, 419 (4th Cir.1970). II The Secretary makes two sets of arguments in favor of her interpretation that warrant further a. She claims that the legisl......
-
Smith v. Vowell
...a natural reading which produces a harmonious result consistent with its legislative history and its remedial character. Rowe v. Finch, 427 F.2d 417 (4th Cir.) (1970); cf. Brown v. Barrett, supra; Ewing v. Black, supra. The approach here advocated by the defendants would simply make a mocke......
- U.S. v. Paiva
-
Mayburg v. Heckler
...medical expense coverage for all qualifying individuals. Rodriguez v. Celebrezze, 349 F.2d 494, 496 (1st Cir.1965); Rowe v. Finch, 427 F.2d 417, 419 (4th Cir.1970). The spell of illness limitation was enacted to control costs by ensuring that Medicare benefits would not extend to individual......