Seaman v. Colvin, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13–6479

• Decision Date: 31 August 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 13–6479
• Citation: 145 F.Supp.3d 421
• Parties: Karen Seaman, Individually, and As Guardian on behalf of C.S. and J.S., Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

145 F.Supp.3d 421

Karen Seaman, Individually, and As Guardian on behalf of C.S. and J.S., Plaintiff,

v.Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13–6479

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed August 31, 2015

Louis F. Hornstine, Blair Leah Hornstine, Hornstine Pelloni & Hornstine, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

M. Jared Littman, Social Security Admin., Margaret L. Hutchinson, Susan R. Becker, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

RESTREPO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, Karen Seaman, individually and as Guardian on behalf of her minor children, C.S. and J.S., filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), who denied plaintiff's applications for mother's insurance benefits on her own behalf and child's survivor insurance benefits on behalf of C.S. and J.S. as the children of a deceased wage earner. Before the Court are plaintiff's brief in support of her request for review of the Commissioner's denial of benefits (ECF Document 41), defendant Commissioner's Response thereto (Document 44), and the parties' respective reply briefs (Docs. 44 & 45). For the reasons which follow, the Commissioner's final decision denying plaintiff's applications for benefits is affirmed.

1. Background

The parties have stipulated to the material facts of this case. See Stipulated Facts (Doc. 40). Plaintiff and her deceased husband, Trevor Seaman, were married on January 6, 2001. Shortly before their marriage, in November 2000, Mr. Seaman was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Due to the risk of infertility that could be caused by chemotherapy and subsequent cancer treatments, Mr. Seaman cryopreserved sperm prior to starting his treatments in November 2000.

In May 2005, plaintiff and Mr. Seaman underwent in vitro fertilization (“IVF”), resulting in ten embryos, and out of the ten embryos, six were frozen. The couple signed a waiver form which stated that if either party were to die, the other would become the “owner” of the frozen embryos. As a result of the IVF procedure, plaintiff became pregnant with one child.

Tragically, on September 29, 2005, Mr. Seaman passed away. Mr. Seaman had been domiciled in Pennsylvania at the time of his death. Sadly, plaintiff's pregnancy resulted in a stillbirth at 37 weeks. Nearly four years after Mr. Seaman's death, on August 23, 2009, two of the frozen embryos were transferred to plaintiff's uterus, and plaintiff subsequently gave birth to C.S.

On May 27, 2010, plaintiff filed two separate applications with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) under Title II and Part A of Title XVII of the Act, respectively: one on behalf of herself, for mother's insurance benefits; and the other on behalf of C.S., for child's survivor insurance benefits. Both applications were denied initially and on reconsideration, and on March 2, 2012, plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on both applications.

Meanwhile, following frozen embryo transfer (“FET”) of some of the remaining aforementioned frozen embryos, plaintiff gave birth to J.S. On June 11, 2013, plaintiff filed two additional separate applications for social security insurance benefits: one on behalf of herself for mother's insurance benefits; and one on behalf of J.S. for child's insurance benefits.

On July 12, 2013, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ issued a decision dated August 16, 2013 finding that Karen Seaman and C.S. were not entitled to social security benefits. The ALJ further found that J.S. was not entitled to social security benefits. In particular, the ALJ found that neither C.S. nor J.S. was a qualified child for purposes of child's survivor benefits under § 416(e) of the Act. The ALJ determined that to be so qualified, the claimant must be able to take as an intestate heir of the decedent wage earner under the laws of the state where the wage earner was domiciled at the time of death, and the Pennsylvania intestacy statutes did not recognize as a decedent's heirs children born as a result of posthumously transferred cryopreserved embryos. Therefore, C.S., J.S., and Karen Seaman were found to be not entitled to child's survivor insurance benefits and mother's insurance benefits, respectively.¹ On July 9, 2014, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, and the ALJ's decision consequently became the final decision of the Commissioner. See Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 592 (3d Cir.2001).

Although plaintiff initiated this civil action prior to the denial of her request for review by the Appeals Council, subsequent to the Appeals Council's denial of review, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, the parties filed stipulated facts and their respective briefs, and oral argument was held April 22, 2015. Plaintiff requests that the Court reverse the ALJ's decision denying benefits, and defendant Commissioner urges the Court to affirm the ALJ's decision.

2. Standard of Review

Judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision is limited, and this Court is bound by the factual findings of the Commissioner if substantial evidence supports them. See Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.2000). Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.” Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) ). It consists of “more than a mere scintilla” of evidence but may be “less than a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 118 (quoting Jesurum v. Secretary of HHS, 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir.1995) ).

The ALJ must also follow “proper procedure and apply proper legal standards.” Coria v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 245, 247 (3d Cir.1984). The Court has plenary review of all legal issues. Schaudeck v. Comm'r of SSA, 181 F.3d 429, 431 (3d Cir.1999). Here, the parties agree that there are no material factual issues in dispute, see, e.g., Pl.'s Reply (Doc. 45) at 1 (“As has been stated by both parties, there are no issues of material fact.”), and that the issue before the Court is a question of law: whether, under the specific factual circumstances in this case, J.S. and C.S. are entitled to child's insurance benefits and plaintiff is entitled to mother's insurance benefits.

3. Discussion

A. Statutory Provisions

The Act provides surviving children of a deceased insured wage earner with benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402(d). In determining whether C.S. and J.S. are qualified children of an insured individual under the Act, the parties agree that the relevant provision is 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A), which states: “In determining whether an applicant is the child or parent of a fully ... insured individual for purposes of this subchapter, the Commissioner of Social Security shall apply such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property ... by the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled at the time of his death.” See Pl.'s Br. (Doc. 41) at 5–6; Def.'s Resp. (Doc. 44) at 4. There is no dispute that Mr. Seaman was domiciled in Pennsylvania at the time of death, and accordingly, Pennsylvania's intestacy laws apply to plaintiff's case. Where the parties diverge is the application of Pennsylvania's afterborn-heirs provision to C.S. and J.S. Pennsylvania's statute provides in relevant part: “Persons begotten before the decedent's death but born thereafter, shall take as if they had been born in his lifetime.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 2104(4).

B. Interpreting Pennsylvania Intestacy Law

In interpreting state law, federal courts are bound by the decisions of the state's highest court. Wirth v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 469 F.3d 305, 309 (3d Cir.2006). When there is a novel question of law and no controlling precedent on the issue, courts must “predict how the highest state court would rule.” Id. (quoting Rolick v. Collins Pine Co., 925 F.2d 661, 664 (3d Cir.1991) ). However, federal courts construing state law must take caution and leave to “state courts to decide whether and to what extent they will expand state common law.” City of Phila. v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc. , 994 F.2d 112, 123 (3d Cir.1993).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is guided by the rules of statutory construction, which direct the Court to “at all times seek to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent underlying the enactment of the particular statute(s).” Pa. Fin. Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. English, 541 Pa. 424, 664 A.2d 84, 87 (1995) (citing 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) ). Where the words of a statute are clear and free from ambiguity the legislative intent is to be gleaned from those very words. Id.

However, where the statute is unclear or susceptible to differing interpretations, the Court must look to other factors, such as the “object to be attained, the circumstances under which [the law] was enacted and any legislative or administrative interpretations thereof.” Id. (citing Coretsky v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Butler Twp., 520 Pa. 513, 555 A.2d 72 (1989) ).

Moreover, the Court “cannot and should not interpose [its] views on public policy for those of the legislature,” and the Court's function is to “interpret statutes, not re-write them.” DiGirolamo v. Apanavage, 454 Pa. 557, 312 A.2d 382, 385 (1973). The Court may not “add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include.” Shafer Elec. & Const. v. Mantia, 626 Pa. 258, 96 A.3d 989, 994 (2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Rieck Inv. Corp., 419 Pa. 52, 213 A.2d 277, 282 (1965) ). Rather, courts must “listen attentively to what it does not say.” Pilchesky v. Lackawanna Cnty. , 624 Pa. 633, 88 A.3d 954, 965 (2014) (citations omitted).

In attempting to predict how the highest state court would rule, “decisions of state intermediate appellate courts...