AR 86-19R(11): Woodson v. Schweiker , 656 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1981) -- Interpretation of the Deemed Marriage Provision -- Title II of the Social Security Act.

AR 86-19R(11)

EFFECTIVE/PUBLICATION DATE: 06/25/92

ACQUIESCENCE RULING

86-19R(11) [1]

ISSUE:

Whether an applicant who cannot establish that she is the legal wife or

widow of a worker, can establish entitlement to wife's, widow's or

mother's benefits on his earnings record under the provision for deeming a

marriage valid set forth in section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Social Security

Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(B), where (1) another individual

previously has been entitled to benefits on the worker's earnings record

under section 202(b), (e) or (g) of the

Act, [2] 42 U.S.C. 402(b), (e) or

(g), but (2) such individual is no longer entitled to

benefits. [3]

STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:

Section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(B)), as in effect

prior to enactment of Public Law 101-508; 20 CFR 404.346(b); Ruling 80-9c

CIRCUIT:

Eleventh (Alabama, Florida, Georgia)

Woodson v. Schweiker , 656 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1981).

APPLICABILITY OF RULING:

DESCRIPTION OF CASE:

This case arose out of the Secretary's denial of an application for

widow's benefits under Title II of the Act. The issue in the case involves

the interpretation of section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Act, which provides for

the recognition, for benefit purposes, of certain ceremonial marriages

entered into in good faith and without knowledge of a legal impediment.

Section 216(h)(1)(B) defines the conditions under which a marriage, not

valid under applicable State law, "shall be deemed to be a valid marriage"

for purposes of establishing that a claimant is the wife, husband, widow

or widower of an insured worker in order to be entitled to benefits which

depend on the establishment of that status. (Hereinafter, this provision

is referred to as the "deemed marriage provision.")

the conditions under which a marriage, not

valid under applicable State law, "shall be deemed to be a valid marriage"

for purposes of establishing that a claimant is the wife, husband, widow

or widower of an insured worker in order to be entitled to benefits which

depend on the establishment of that status. (Hereinafter, this provision

is referred to as the "deemed marriage provision.")

The insured worker, Rushell Woodson, entered into three ceremonial

marriages during his lifetime. His first marriage, to Mary Lou Woodson,

ended with her death in November 1955, and is not pertinent to the issues

in this case. His second marriage, in 1957, was to Ethel Hurd, from whom

he separated sometime before 1960. Since there never was a divorce, this

marriage continued until Woodson's death. Eliza Woodson, the plaintiff in

this case, was his third wife, whom he married in 1966, even though he was

still married to Ethel Hurd.

After Rushell Woodson's death on May 25, 1970, Eliza Woodson applied for

and was paid the lump sum death payment on his earnings record, on the

basis of being his widow, who was living with him at the time of his

death. [5] Ethel Hurd remarried

in October 1970, and in January 1971, she applied for and became entitled

to mother's benefits on the deceased's earnings record, based on her

status as his legal widow and having in her care a child (Diane) of the

deceased worker who was entitled to benefits on Mr. Woodson's earnings

record. Under the circumstances, in this case the widow's remarriage

terminated her entitlement to mother's benefits. Since Ethel Hurd had

remarried prior to filing her application, she was entitled to mother's

benefits only for a 5-month period during the retroactive life of her

application which was prior to the remarriage.

worker who was entitled to benefits on Mr. Woodson's earnings

record. Under the circumstances, in this case the widow's remarriage

terminated her entitlement to mother's benefits. Since Ethel Hurd had

remarried prior to filing her application, she was entitled to mother's

benefits only for a 5-month period during the retroactive life of her

application which was prior to the remarriage.

In 1975, Eliza Woodson filed an application for widow's benefits on the

worker's earnings record. She did not contest the fact that Ethel Hurd was

the legal widow, but sought to establish entitlement to benefits on the

basis of the deemed marriage provision of the Act. This application

initially and on administrative review was denied by the Secretary on the

basis that Eliza Woodson could not qualify as a widow under the deemed

marriage provision section 216(h)(1)(B) and implementing regulation 20 CFR

404.346(b) due to Ethel Hurd's, the legal widow's, prior period of

entitlement to mother's benefits.

Eliza Woodson sought judicial review in the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of Texas which affirmed the Secretary's decision.

However, upon her further appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit, the court reversed the decision of the district court and

remanded the case to the district court to award widow's benefits to

her.

HOLDING:

The Court of Appeals held that Ethel Hurd's prior period of entitlement to

mother's benefits did not preclude Eliza Woodson from qualifying for

widow's benefits on the basis of the deemed marriage provision of section

216(h)(1) of the Act. The court based this conclusion upon its

construction of language in subsection (B) of 216(h)(1) which renders the

deemed marriage provision inapplicable where another individual "is or has

been entitled to a benefit" on the basis of marital relationship to the

worker, "and such other person is (or is deemed to be) a wife, widow,

husband or widower of such insured individual . .

he Act. The court based this conclusion upon its

construction of language in subsection (B) of 216(h)(1) which renders the

deemed marriage provision inapplicable where another individual "is or has

been entitled to a benefit" on the basis of marital relationship to the

worker, "and such other person is (or is deemed to be) a wife, widow,

husband or widower of such insured individual . . . at the time such

applicant files the application . . ."

The court held that the deemed marriage provision was applicable in this

case since Ethel Hurd, whose benefits were terminated due to her

remarriage, was no longer a widow within the meaning of the Act "at the

time" Eliza Woodson filed her application. The court stated that its

construction of section 216(h)(1)(B) did not violate the government's

interest against "double-dipping" by beneficiaries, since benefits would

be paid to a second widow on the earnings record sequentially, not

concurrently with benefits to the previously entitled legal widow. The

court stressed the fact that the Act has a remedial purpose and must be

liberally construed, in stating that "[i]t would be totally inequitable to

deny Eliza Woodson survivor benefits in the face of this record and

reading the statute as we do." Regarding the facts, the court stressed the

worker's long history of insured work, the fact that only $563.00 in

benefits had been paid on his earnings record, and the fact the

plaintiff's "marriage" to the worker had lasted for several years until

his death. The court concluded:

The court distinguished its holding from the decision of the Second

Circuit in Rosenberg v. Richardson , 538 F.2d 487 (2nd Cir. 1976)

which, under the terms set forth therein, allowed two widows to be

entitled to benefits concurrently. Regarding the Rosenberg case,

the Fifth Circuit stated: "Our facts do not require us to reach that point

and we do not intimate our thinking until faced with those facts."

uished its holding from the decision of the Second

Circuit in Rosenberg v. Richardson , 538 F.2d 487 (2nd Cir. 1976)

which, under the terms set forth therein, allowed two widows to be

entitled to benefits concurrently. Regarding the Rosenberg case,

the Fifth Circuit stated: "Our facts do not require us to reach that point

and we do not intimate our thinking until faced with those facts."

STATEMENT AS TO HOW WOODSON DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

POLICY:

To establish entitlement to widow's or mother's benefits, an applicant

needs to establish that she "is not married." See sections 202(e)(1)(A)

and 202(g)(1)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 404(e)(1)(A) and 402(g)(1)(A); 20

CFR 404.336(e) and 404.340(c). (When widower's benefits are involved, see

section 202(f)(1)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 402(f)(1)(A).) The possibility

of re-entitlement is available when the later marriage ends, whether by

death, divorce, or annulment, and even if there are multiple later

marriages, as long as all the later marriages have ended.

Under SSA's interpretation of the Act, prior to the change mandated by

section 5119 of Public Law 101-508, the language of section 216(h)(1)(B)

which provided that an applicant may not be entitled to benefits under the

deemed marriage provision if another individual "is (or is deemed to be) a

wife, widow, husband or widower of such insured individual . . . at the

time such applicant files the application . . ." would bar Eliza Woodson's

entitlement to widow's benefits. It is SSA's position that the termination

of Ethel Hurd's benefits due to her remarriage did not end her status as

Woodson's legal widow within the meaning of the Act. Rather, she retained

that status and the possibility of becoming entitled to benefits on

Woodson's earnings record in the future, if the later marriage should

end.

uld bar Eliza Woodson's

entitlement to widow's benefits. It is SSA's position that the termination

of Ethel Hurd's benefits due to her remarriage did not end her status as

Woodson's legal widow within the meaning of the Act. Rather, she retained

that status and the possibility of becoming entitled to benefits on

Woodson's earnings record in the future, if the later marriage should

end.

As set forth above, the Court of Appeals in Woodson held that the

previously entitled legal widow no longer had the status of a widow within

the meaning of section 216(h)(1)(B) after termination of her benefits as a

widow due to remarriage.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT:

This ruling applies only to eligibility for benefits payable for months

prior to January 1991 in cases where the applicant seeking to invoke the

deemed marriage provision resides in Alabama, Florida, or Georgia at the

time of the determination or decision at any administrative level, i.e. , initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing,

or Appeals Council.

When a claimant seeks to establish her status as the wife or widow of a

worker on the basis of the deemed marriage provision and the legal widow

was previously entitled, claimant's entitlement will not be barred because

the legal widow was previously entitled to wife's, widow's or mother's

benefits under section 202(b), (e) or (g) of the

Act. [6] This ruling applies

equally to claims for husband's, widower's and father's benefits. See

footnote 3.

ow of a

worker on the basis of the deemed marriage provision and the legal widow

was previously entitled, claimant's entitlement will not be barred because

the legal widow was previously entitled to wife's, widow's or mother's

benefits under section 202(b), (e) or (g) of the

Act. [6] This ruling applies

equally to claims for husband's, widower's and father's benefits. See

footnote 3.

In such cases, the application of the deemed spouse will be adjudicated as

though the legal spouse had not been entitled, except that the "deemed

spouse" will not be entitled to wife's, widow's or mother's benefits for

any months prior to the month after the month in which the former

beneficiary's benefits terminated. Once the applicant has become entitled

to benefits under the deemed marriage provisions by application of this

ruling, her continuing entitlement should be determined in accordance with

regular SSA policies and

procedures. [7]

[1] The original Acquiescence

Ruling for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' holding in Woodson ,

issued May 22, 1986, is rescinded and replaced by this revised

Acquiescence Ruling to reflect the enactment of section 5119 of Public Law

101-508. Section 5119 of Public Law 101-508 authorizes the payment of

benefits to both a legal "spouse" and a deemed "spouse," where "spouse" is

defined as a wife, divorced wife, widow, surviving divorced wife, husband,

divorced husband, widower, or surviving divorced husband. This change is

effective with respect to benefits payable for months after December 1990. Woodson was decided on September 25, 1981, when the States which

now comprise the Eleventh Circuit were part of the Fifth Circuit. Under

the holding in Bonner v. City of Pritchard, Alabama , 661 F.2d 1206

(11th Cir. 1981), Fifth Circuit decisions issued prior to October 1, 1981

are precedents for the Eleventh Circuit. Accordingly, a Ruling of

Acquiescence on Woodson is provided for Eleventh Circuit

residents.

eptember 25, 1981, when the States which

now comprise the Eleventh Circuit were part of the Fifth Circuit. Under

the holding in Bonner v. City of Pritchard, Alabama , 661 F.2d 1206

(11th Cir. 1981), Fifth Circuit decisions issued prior to October 1, 1981

are precedents for the Eleventh Circuit. Accordingly, a Ruling of

Acquiescence on Woodson is provided for Eleventh Circuit

residents.

[2] Respectively, the paragraphs

of this section set forth the conditions for entitlement for wife's,

widow's and mother's insurance benefits.

[3] This ruling applies equally

to an individual seeking to establish entitlement to husband's, widower's

or father's benefits by invoking the provisions of section 216(h)(1) of

the Act, where another individual previously has been entitled to

husband's, widower's or father's benefits under section 202(c), (f) or

(g), 42 U.S.C. 402(c), (f) or (g).

[4] If a person is already

entitled to benefits in December 1990 as a spouse, divorced spouse,

widow(er), or surviving divorced spouse, he or she does not have to file

another application in order to establish entitlement under the amended

statute.

[5] Under the Act, a lump sum

payment ($255.00) may be payable upon the death of an insured worker. See

section 202(i) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 402(i). The order of priority for

determining who will receive the payment is set forth in current

regulations at 20 CFR 404.390-404.395. In pertinent part, the Act and

regulations provide that a widow (or widower) living with the worker at

the time of death is, on that basis, first in order of priority for

receiving the payment. On this point, the regulations were substantively

the same when Eliza Woodson filed her claim and received the lump sum

payment.

nt is set forth in current

regulations at 20 CFR 404.390-404.395. In pertinent part, the Act and

regulations provide that a widow (or widower) living with the worker at

the time of death is, on that basis, first in order of priority for

receiving the payment. On this point, the regulations were substantively

the same when Eliza Woodson filed her claim and received the lump sum

payment.

[6] In Woodson , Ethel

Hurd's remarriage was the event which terminated her entitlement to

benefits on the worker's account. However, the court's holding is based on

the fact her status as a widow within the meaning of section 216(h)(1)(B)

has ended, and would apply equally where the former beneficiary's

entitlement had terminated for some other reason. Under the Act and

regulations, there are certain situations in which a widow's remarriage

does not terminate her entitlement to benefits. See 20 CFR 404.337 and

404.341. The Woodson case does not involve a remarriage which comes

within the terms of an exception, and this ruling is not applicable to

cases which come within the terms of an exception.

[7] Under SSA's policy,

entitlement of a claimant under the deemed marriage provision is possible

where the beneficiary previously entitled to wife's, widow's or mother's

benefits has died or where the beneficiary's marriage to the insured

worker has dissolved by divorce or annulment. The earliest possible month

of entitlement for the deemed spouse would be the month of the former

beneficiary's death, or, if applicable, dissolution of the marriage to the

insured worker. Therefore, in this situation, both SSA policy and circuit

law would permit use of the deemed marriage provision to entitle the

deemed spouse.