# SSR 80-9c: SSR 80-9c: SECTIONS 202(e); 216(c) and (h)(1)(A) and (B) (42 U.S.C. 402(e); 416(c) and (h)(1)(A) and (B) -- WIDOW'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS -- STATUS OF DEEMED SPOUSE

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_80_9c

## Section

- **Citation:** SSR 80-9c
- **Heading:** SSR 80-9c: SECTIONS 202(e); 216(c) and (h)(1)(A) and (B) (42 U.S.C. 402(e); 416(c) and (h)(1)(A) and (B) -- WIDOW'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS -- STATUS OF DEEMED SPOUSE
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Social Security Rulings / OASI / Widow(er)'s Insurance benefits / SSR 80-9c

## Text

20 CFR 404.335, 404.345 and 404.346

SSR 80-9c

DAVIS v. CALIFANO, 603 F.2d 618 (7th Cir. 1979)

WOOD, Circuit Judge:

Henry Davis, a truckdriver, died in 1972. One year later his two wives
applied for widow's insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 401 et seq . The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
ruled that the first wife, Novella, was the "legal" widow. The second
wife, Mary, filed this action against the Secretary in federal district
court. The district court judge, while finding that Novella was the
"legal" widow, ordered that the two wives split the widow's insurance
benefits. The Secretary appealed the district court's order, and Mary
cross-appealed. We note jurisdiction under 28 U.S.c. § 1291.

In 1922 Henry Davis married Novella Harrison in Orbion County, Tennessee.
In 1938, three years after their fifth child was born, Henry deserted the
family, and on grounds of abandonment Novella obtained a "divorce from bed
and board," a legal order of separation in Dresden,
Tennessee. [1] Novella never
asked for a decree of absolute divorce and remained in Tennessee. She
continued to use the name Mrs. Henry Davis and raised the five children
alone.

In 1940 while employed as an interstate truckdriver, Henry met Mary Day,
in Martin, Tennessee. He told her that he had been previously married to
Novella Davis, that they were divorced in Dresden,
Tennessee, [2] and that he was
jailed on one occasion for failure to make "alimony"
payments. [3] Mary never
examined, nor did she ask to see, the actual divorce decree. In 1942 in
St. Louis, Missouri, Henry and Mary were married and they immediately
moved to Chicago where they resided for the next thirty years. They were
divorced in 1954 in Illinois but remarried in 1955. For the next 17 years
Henry and Mary lived together continuously as husband and wife until
Henry's death in 1972. No children resulted from Henry's second
marriage.
l divorce decree. In 1942 in
St. Louis, Missouri, Henry and Mary were married and they immediately
moved to Chicago where they resided for the next thirty years. They were
divorced in 1954 in Illinois but remarried in 1955. For the next 17 years
Henry and Mary lived together continuously as husband and wife until
Henry's death in 1972. No children resulted from Henry's second
marriage.

After Henry's death Mary applied in January 1973 for Social Security
disabled widow's insurance benefits on the account of Henry, the wage
earner. The present controversy began in April 1973 when, also on Henry's
account, Novella applied for widow's insurance benefits.

Under the Social Security Act, widow's insurance benefits are payable to
the widow or the surviving divorced of an individual who died fully
insured if the wife (a) has not married, (b) has attained age 60, or has
reached 50 years of age but has not yet attained age 60 and is under a
disability, and (c) has filed an application, 42 U.S.C. § 402(e). The term
"widow" means the surviving wife of the insured, 42 U.S.C. § 416(c).

There are two methods for qualifying for widow's insurance benefits. A
spouse qualifies under the state marital status test, which looks to the
law of the state of the insured worker's domicile at the time of the
worker's death, if the courts of that state would find either that: (a)
the two were "validly married," or (b) the applicant, although not validly
married, may be considered the widow "if such applicant would, under the
laws applied by such courts in determining the devolution of intestate
personal property, have the same status with respect to the taking of such
property as a . . . widow." 42 U.S.C. §
416(h)(10(A). [4]
at state would find either that: (a)
the two were "validly married," or (b) the applicant, although not validly
married, may be considered the widow "if such applicant would, under the
laws applied by such courts in determining the devolution of intestate
personal property, have the same status with respect to the taking of such
property as a . . . widow." 42 U.S.C. §
416(h)(10(A). [4]

If an applicant cannot pass the state marital status test, the applicant
may still receive widow's benefits under the "purely 'federal' marital
status test." Martin, Social Security Benefits for Spouses , 63
Cornell L. Rev. 789, 818 (1978). Congress established this test in 1960 by
amending the Act to provide benefits to individuals who, because of a
legal impediment under state law, had invalid marriages and were
consequently ineligible to receive benefits. See S. Rep. No. 1856, 86th
Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1960] U.S. Code Cong.
& Ad. News 3608, 3629. Section 416(h)(1)(B), generally known as the
"deemed spouse" provision, requires that: (a) the applicant married the
wage earner in good faith, without knowing of the legal impediment to the
validity of the marriage, (b) the applicant was living with the wage
earner at the time of his death, and (c) no other widow "is or has been
entitled to a benefit" under the state marital status test. 42 U.S.C. §
416(h)(1)(B). [5]

A "legal impediment" to the validity of a purported marriage is defined
as resulting from either the lack of dissolution of a previous marriage or
a defect in the marriage ceremony. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B). See
also S. Rep. No. 1856, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1960] U.S. Code Cong.
& Ad. News 3608, 3629 and 3685. Section 416(h)(1)(B) also includes a
clause for terminating the payments of a deemed widow once the "legal
widow" has made a formal application for widow's benefits, 42 U.S.C. §
416(h)(1)(B).
evious marriage or
a defect in the marriage ceremony. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B). See
also S. Rep. No. 1856, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1960] U.S. Code Cong.
& Ad. News 3608, 3629 and 3685. Section 416(h)(1)(B) also includes a
clause for terminating the payments of a deemed widow once the "legal
widow" has made a formal application for widow's benefits, 42 U.S.C. §
416(h)(1)(B).

Mary's initial application was denied at both the initial and
reconsideration levels because Mary failed to meet the disability
requirement under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402(e). In 1975
Mary's application was reviewed, a hearing was held and an administrative
law judge in Chicago decided that Mary was not entitled to widow's
benefits because she was neither disabled nor the legal widow of Henry. In
April 1976 the administrative law judge's decision was affirmed by the
Social Security Appeals Council and adopted as the final decision of the
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Mary Davis filed suit in district court
in June 1976 seeking review of the Secretary's decision denying her claim
for widow's disability insurance benefits. Mary sought a reversal of the
Secretary's decision claiming, among other things, that (1) the Secretary
erroneously placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove
dissolution of a previous marriage, (2) the Secretary's decision was
unsupported by substantial evidence, and (3) the deemed spouse exception
in 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(B), inoperable if a legal widow was eligible for
benefits, violated the equal protection and due process guarantees of the
Fifth Amendment.
t (1) the Secretary
erroneously placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove
dissolution of a previous marriage, (2) the Secretary's decision was
unsupported by substantial evidence, and (3) the deemed spouse exception
in 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(B), inoperable if a legal widow was eligible for
benefits, violated the equal protection and due process guarantees of the
Fifth Amendment.

The district court referred the case to a magistrate, and upon a motion
by the Secretary, the magistrate remanded the case on April 11, 1977, for
further administrative proceedings on the issues of whether Mary was
disabled and whether she was the legal widow of the deceased wage earner,
Henry Davis. Following a second hearing the second administrative law
judge issued a recommended decision on May 25, 1977. In his decision the
administrative law judge commented on Illinois law:

The administrative law judge then isolated the central issue of the case,
considered the evidence and made findings of
fact. [6]

The crucial query in the instant case is whether the first wife, Novella
Davis, has presented sufficient evidence so as to overcome the presumption
favoring the validity of the marriage between Mary and Henry Davis and
thereby shifting the burden of proof to Mary Davis to show that there was,
in fact, a divorce a vinculo matrimonii .

Novella Davis testified at the hearing or deposition taken in her behalf
that there has never been an absolute divorce or divorce a vinculo
matrimonii so as to dissolve the marital status between herself and
Henry R. Davis. The June 15, 1938 decree of "divorce from bed and board"
or a divorce a mensa et thoro is granted at the discretion of the
court and is clearly not considered to be a final and absolute divorce
(section 36-802 T.C.A.). In 1963 the divorce statute of Tennessee was
amended so as to allow either party to a "divorce from bed and board" to
petition for an absolute divorce after two years
vis. The June 15, 1938 decree of "divorce from bed and board"
or a divorce a mensa et thoro is granted at the discretion of the
court and is clearly not considered to be a final and absolute divorce
(section 36-802 T.C.A.). In 1963 the divorce statute of Tennessee was
amended so as to allow either party to a "divorce from bed and board" to
petition for an absolute divorce after two years. Novella Davis also
testified that to her knowledge the deceased, Henry R. Davis, did not
avail himself of this right and that she was never summoned to appear for
any action instituted by Henry R. Davis.

The record shows that when Henry Davis left Tennessee in 1942 he and Mary
V. Davis came to Chicago, Illinois and so remained for the duration of his
life. There was testimony that between about 1940 and 1942 Mr. Davis
frequently traveled in the course of his employment, but there is no
indication that he actually resided in any other state other than
Tennessee during this period. . . . The record contains evidence that the
records of Weakley County, Tennessee, Chicago, Illinois and the various
branch courts of Cook County, Illinois, were searched in order to
ascertain whether Henry R. Davis obtained a divorce from Novella Harrison
Davis. The record searches revealed no evidence of such a divorce.
(Exhibits 31 to 35).

It is the opinion of the undersigned Administrative Law Judge that no
final or absolute decree of divorce was ever issued which dissolved the
matrimonial status between Henry and Novella Davis and that Henry Davis
erroneously relied upon a decree of "divorce from bed and board" in his
belief that the marital status between himself and Novella Davis was
absolutely dissolved. . . .
o 35).

It is the opinion of the undersigned Administrative Law Judge that no
final or absolute decree of divorce was ever issued which dissolved the
matrimonial status between Henry and Novella Davis and that Henry Davis
erroneously relied upon a decree of "divorce from bed and board" in his
belief that the marital status between himself and Novella Davis was
absolutely dissolved. . . .

Novella Davis never remarried and continued to use the name of Henry
R.Davis. Henry Davis, although he did travel in the course of this
employment between 1940 and 1942, resided in Tennessee until 1942 and
thereafter in Chicago, Illinois until his death. There are strong equities
favoring a woman who spent thirty years as the wife of an individual, but
there are equally strong equities for one who raised five children that
resulted from a marriage to the same individual. The Administrative Law
Judge recognizes these competing forces, but is compelled to follow the
law of Illinois. The present law in the State of Illinois would find that
Novella Davis has succeeded in rebutting the presumption in favor of the
validity of the second marriage to Mary V. Davis and that Mary V. Davis
has not, in fact, shown that Henry r. Davis secured a divorce a vinculo
matrimonii from Novella Davis as required by the Social Security Act.
Since Mary Davis is not the widow of henry Davis, I need not decide the
issue of "disability." However, since this decision is merely a
recommended decision and need not be followed by the Appeals Council, I
feel constrained to note that in my opinion Mary Davis, from the medical
evidence before me, is "disabled" within the meaning of the
Act. [7]

The Administrative law judge then made these recommended findings:

On July 29, 1977, the Appeals Council adopted the administrative law
judge's findings and conclusions as their own and rejected Mary Davis'
claim of entitlement to widow's insurance benefits.
rained to note that in my opinion Mary Davis, from the medical
evidence before me, is "disabled" within the meaning of the
Act. [7]

The Administrative law judge then made these recommended findings:

On July 29, 1977, the Appeals Council adopted the administrative law
judge's findings and conclusions as their own and rejected Mary Davis'
claim of entitlement to widow's insurance benefits.

After the case was returned to the magistrate, both the plaintiff and the
Secretary filed cross motions for summary judgment. On February 14, 1978,
the magistrate recommended to the district court that the defendant be
granted summary judgment and that the case be dismissed. Subsequently, the
plaintiff filed timely exceptions to the magistrate's report requiring the
court to make a de novo determination of the merits of the cross
motions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

In granting the Secretary's motion for summary judgment on June 5, 1978,
the district court judge considered three arguments advanced by the
plaintiff. First, the court noted that although the plaintiff styled her
allegations of error to sound as though the Secretary misinterpreted
Illinois law in applying the state standard for rebutting the presumption
of the validity of a subsequent marriage, the plaintiff was actually
objecting to a determination by the Secretary which rested only in fact.
The plaintiff urged the district court to accept the notion that since
Henry worked as a long distance truck driver for four years between his
separation from Novella and his second marriage to Mary, he may have
established residence anywhere in the continental United States for
purposes of obtaining an absolute divorce from Novella
termination by the Secretary which rested only in fact.
The plaintiff urged the district court to accept the notion that since
Henry worked as a long distance truck driver for four years between his
separation from Novella and his second marriage to Mary, he may have
established residence anywhere in the continental United States for
purposes of obtaining an absolute divorce from Novella. The district court
reviewed the evidence and concluded, "There is substantial evidence from
which to find that it was unlikely that Henry resided other than in
Tennessee and Illinois and that negative searches of divorce records in
the appropriate counties in those states were sufficient to rebut the
presumption of validity of the second marriage." Second, the district
court concluded that the challenged statutory section, 42 U.S.C. §
416(h)(10(B), divesting a "deemed widow" of benefits because of the
presence of a supervening claimant, was constitutional, see Weinberger
v.Salfi , 422 U.S. 749 (1975). In rejecting the due process and equal
protection claim, the court commented that although the plaintiff asserted
that Section 416(h)(1)(B) was arbitrary and capricious, she did not
contend the Congress is constitutionally obliged to prefer a "deemed
widow" to an "actual widow" as a claimant for widow's benefits. The court
added, furthermore, that the plaintiff did not, and could not, argue that
the government was constitutionally commanded to pay twice -- full
benefits to each widow. Third, the plaintiff urged the court to follow a
Second Circuit decision, Rosenberg v. Richardson , 538 F.2d 487 (2d
Cir. 1976), and divide the benefits equitable between Mary and Novella.
Persuaded by Rosenberg , the district court judge, despite the grant
of summary judgment to the defendant, awarded widow's benefits to Mary
Davis
ommanded to pay twice -- full
benefits to each widow. Third, the plaintiff urged the court to follow a
Second Circuit decision, Rosenberg v. Richardson , 538 F.2d 487 (2d
Cir. 1976), and divide the benefits equitable between Mary and Novella.
Persuaded by Rosenberg , the district court judge, despite the grant
of summary judgment to the defendant, awarded widow's benefits to Mary
Davis. Following the Second Circuit's formula, the judge figured that Mary
should receive a residual payment equal to the difference between the
maximum widow's benefits payable on the insured's account and the amount
by which the legal widow's Social Security payment had been increased by
virtue of her certification as the legal widow, Rosenberg v.
Richardson , supra at 491.

A subsequent court order entered after the submission of additional
evidence from the Social Security Administration determined the precise
amounts of widow's benefits payable to Novella and Mary. under the
applicable payment schedule the maximum widow's benefit payable on Henry's
account is $380.70 per month. Novella was already receiving $163.70 per
month in retirement insurance benefits based on her personal retirement
account. Pursuant to the operation of 42 U.S.C. § 402(k)(3)(A), however,
Novella could not receive the sum of $380.70 and $163.70, because her
widow's benefit, the $380.70, must be reduced by an amount equal to her
present retirement payments,
$163.70. [8] Accordingly Novella
stands to receive $380.70 in benefits, an increase of $217.00. Mary's
award of residual widow's benefits, the difference between the maximum of
$380.70 and Mary's $217.00 increase in benefits, is $163.70 per month in
current payments. The district court also ordered that Mary should receive
back benefits of $8,659.20.
her
present retirement payments,
$163.70. [8] Accordingly Novella
stands to receive $380.70 in benefits, an increase of $217.00. Mary's
award of residual widow's benefits, the difference between the maximum of
$380.70 and Mary's $217.00 increase in benefits, is $163.70 per month in
current payments. The district court also ordered that Mary should receive
back benefits of $8,659.20.

Two questions are raised in this appeal. The first question we consider,
raised by the plaintiff's cross-appeal, is whether the Secretary, and
subsequently the district court, were correct in-finding that Novella
Davis was the widow of Henry Davis under Illinois law. The second
question, raised by the Secretary's appeal, is whether the district court
erred in awarding a share of widow's insurance benefits to a "deemed
widow" when a "legal widow" was entitled to the widow's benefits on the
account of the same insured individual.

I.

Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
establishes the standard for judicial review of the first issue: "The
findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial
evidence, shall be conclusive." We are restricted in our review of
administrative determinations, Williams v. Califano , 593 F.2d 282
(7th Cir. 1979), as we cannot make our own appraisal of the evidence, Johnson v. Weinberger , 525 F.2d 403, 406-07 (7th Cir. 1975), Lahr v. Richardson , 476 F.2d 1088, 1090 (7th Cir. 1973), and we,
like the district court, must uphold the Secretary's factual
determinations, if they are "supported by substantial evidence," 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).

The last word from the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of
conflicting marriages of the same spouse was that in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the first marriage will be presumed to have
ended in a divorce in order to save the second marriage. Sparling v.
Industrial Commission , 48 Ill, 2d 332, 336-37, 270 N.E.2d 411, 413
ed by substantial evidence," 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).

The last word from the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of
conflicting marriages of the same spouse was that in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the first marriage will be presumed to have
ended in a divorce in order to save the second marriage. Sparling v.
Industrial Commission , 48 Ill, 2d 332, 336-37, 270 N.E.2d 411, 413
(1971). The Supreme Court also declared that "the presumption may be
rebutted by evidence which, standing alone, affords reasonable grounds for
concluding that no divorce has been secured." Id .

In finding that Novella was the legal widow of Henry under Illinois law,
the Secretary made these ancillary findings: Novella secured a separation
from Henry, no final or absolute divorce was ever entered dissolving
Novella and Henry's marriage, and Henry resided in only two places,
Tennessee and Illinois. the Secretary also determined, and the district
court also affirmed, that Novella succeeded in rebutting the Illinois
presumption favoring the validity of the second marriage between Mary and
Henry and that Mary, once the burden shifted to her, failed to show that
Henry in fact secured a divorce from Novella. The plaintiff challenges
these findings.

Substantial evidence supports the Secretary. The record shows that the
divorce documents in Dresden (Weakley County), Tennessee, and Chicago
(Cook County), Illinois, were carefully searched to discover whether Henry
obtained a divorce from Novella. The record searches revealed nothing.

The probative value of the negative searches was bolstered by Novella's
and Mary's testimony, infra , and particularly by this colloquy with
Mary:

Furthermore, Novella testified that she never received any papers or a
final decree of divorce from Henry.
nty), Illinois, were carefully searched to discover whether Henry
obtained a divorce from Novella. The record searches revealed nothing.

The probative value of the negative searches was bolstered by Novella's
and Mary's testimony, infra , and particularly by this colloquy with
Mary:

Furthermore, Novella testified that she never received any papers or a
final decree of divorce from Henry.

In the face of Mary's testimony and evidence of the negative searches of
divorce records in the counties where Henry resided, the plaintiff would
have us imagine that Henry disappeared between 1938 to 1940 and that
during the two-year period he established residency in some unknown
jurisdiction and secured a divorce there from
Novella. [9] In support of her
position she attaches significance to the face that the separation order
obtained by Novella was entered pro confesso , and, therefore, she
concludes that the defendant, by not answering the complaint, "may have
already been residing in another jurisdiction." The plaintiff also claims
in her brief that Novella's testimony "tends to confirm this possibility."
Novella testified, in part, that "[Henry] was generally on the road all
the time a trucking."

The plaintiff's notion is no more than wishful thinking. Supporting the
Secretary's conclusion that Henry resided only in Tennessee and Illinois.
Novella testified that after Henry abandoned her and the five children in
1938 or 1939, he stayed in Tennessee for about a year, worked at the
Clifton Weldons and then moved to Chicago. Mary herself testified that
when she first met Henry in 1940 he was living with his sister and
brother-in-law, the Weldons, in Martin, Tennessee. Mary's other testimony,
regarding the time Henry was incarcerated for failure to make separate
maintenance payments to Novella, also placed Henry in Dresden, Tennessee
in the 1938-40 period.
d at the
Clifton Weldons and then moved to Chicago. Mary herself testified that
when she first met Henry in 1940 he was living with his sister and
brother-in-law, the Weldons, in Martin, Tennessee. Mary's other testimony,
regarding the time Henry was incarcerated for failure to make separate
maintenance payments to Novella, also placed Henry in Dresden, Tennessee
in the 1938-40 period.

The only evidence that the plaintiff has cited us in the record to show
that Henry could have possibly resided in a place other than Tennessee and
Illinois is testimony from Mary who stated that in his employment as a
trucker he traveled for long periods of time into Michigan and Louisiana.
An examination of her testimony in the record reveals, however, that Mary
saw Henry "maybe once a week, maybe once a month" when he traveled into
those states. The relevant time period: the initial months after they met
in 1940 . By the plaintiff's own admission, Henry at that time was a
resident of Tennessee.

The plaintiff's position is based upon sheer speculation and conjecture.
Henry was not a wanderer like Aeneas, Ulysses or Gulliver. There was no
missing, unexplained or mysterious two- year void in Henry's life between
1938-40. He was simply a truck driver and, like many interstate haulers,
he may have been home only on the weekends.

We have carefully and thoroughly examined the record as a whole, and we,
like the district court, conclude that the Secretary's findings are
supported by substantial evidence.

II.
ver. There was no
missing, unexplained or mysterious two- year void in Henry's life between
1938-40. He was simply a truck driver and, like many interstate haulers,
he may have been home only on the weekends.

We have carefully and thoroughly examined the record as a whole, and we,
like the district court, conclude that the Secretary's findings are
supported by substantial evidence.

II.

The Secretary argues in his appeal that the district court erred in
allowing Mary Davis widow's insurance benefits in accordance with the
formula devised by the Court of appeals in Rosenberg v. Richardson ,
538 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1976). In urging a reversal of the district court,
the Secretary attacks the applicability of Rosenberg to these
facts. He further contends that the formula directly contravenes the
congressional intent and statutory language, extends beyond a liberal
construct of the Act, and, in creating a class of beneficiaries
specifically excluded by Congress from entitlement, establishes a
precedent which endangers the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund.
The plaintiff responds claiming that the Rosenberg formula properly
interprets the statute in accordance with a broad construction of the Act
designed to effectuate humanitarian purposes and that the court order does
not harm the trust fund. We agree with the
Secretary. [10]

We stated earlier that the explicit language of Section 416(h)(1)(B)
provides that the deemed spouse provision does not operate if a legal
widow under Section 416(h)(1)(A) "is or has been entitled to a benefit."
42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B). The legislative history surrounding the
amendment, although sparse, is instructive in resolving the conflict
between the entitlement of a deemed spouse upon the entitlement of a legal
spouse. The House Ways and Means Committee reported unequivocally: "An
applicant who went through a marriage ceremony with an insured individual
will not be deemed to be the . . . widow . .
§ 416(h)(1)(B). The legislative history surrounding the
amendment, although sparse, is instructive in resolving the conflict
between the entitlement of a deemed spouse upon the entitlement of a legal
spouse. The House Ways and Means Committee reported unequivocally: "An
applicant who went through a marriage ceremony with an insured individual
will not be deemed to be the . . . widow . . . of that insured individual
if another person is or has been entitled . . . widow's . . . benefits
based on the insured individual's earnings and the other person has the
status of . . . widow . . . of the insured individual at the time the
application for benefits is filed." H. Rep. No. 1799, 86th Cong., 2d
Sess., reprinted in [1960] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3608,
3684. Favoring the legal widow over the deemed widow, the Congress also
included a mechanism for terminating the payments to a deemed widow once
the legal widow made a formal application for widow's benefits. 42 U.S.C.
§ 416(h)(1)(B). Again the legislative history gives us guidance: "The
benefits of a person who has been deemed to be a . . . widow . . . under
the provisions of the new subparagraph will end if (and with payment for
the month before the month in which) the Secretary certifies that benefits
are payable to a person who was validly married to the insured
individual." H. Rep. No. 1799, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1960] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3608, 3684. A plain and fair reading
of Section 416(h)(1)(B) leaves no room for question, doubt or ambiguity.
Congress decided that there can be no deemed spouse receiving widow's
benefits if the legal widow is entitled to the benefits. 42 U.S.C. §
416(h)(1)(B); see Woodson v. Califano , 455 F. Supp. 457 (S.D. Tex.
1978); McGuire v. Califano , 440 F. Supp. 1031 (D. Neb. 1977). In
the present case we have already affirmed the Secretary's determination
that Novella Davis is Henry's legal widow. Mary, therefore, is precluded
from receiving benefits.
ceiving widow's
benefits if the legal widow is entitled to the benefits. 42 U.S.C. §
416(h)(1)(B); see Woodson v. Califano , 455 F. Supp. 457 (S.D. Tex.
1978); McGuire v. Califano , 440 F. Supp. 1031 (D. Neb. 1977). In
the present case we have already affirmed the Secretary's determination
that Novella Davis is Henry's legal widow. Mary, therefore, is precluded
from receiving benefits.

Following Rosenberg v. Richardson, supra, the district court
awarded Mary back benefits and widow's benefits. In Rosenberg , Max
Rosenberg and Celia Beck were married in 1920 in New York City. Thirteen
years later Max, dissatisfied with the marriage, procured a Mexican
divorce by mail. Celia eventually found employment, never remarried and
saw little of Max after the divorce. Two years after his Mexican divorce
Max married Frieda Silverstein in 1935 in a Connecticut civil ceremony.
Max and Frieda, both New York domiciliaries, celebrated their marriage in
Connecticut because a lawyer advised them that the neighboring state
recognized the effectiveness of Max's Mexican divorce from Celia, thereby
rendering the subsequent marriage valid. For the next 36 years Max and
Frieda lived together as husband and wife. While Frieda was a housewife
responsible for raising the couple's two children, Max, an electrician,
supported the family and for many years his salary included a tax
deduction to the Social Security fund.
ognized the effectiveness of Max's Mexican divorce from Celia, thereby
rendering the subsequent marriage valid. For the next 36 years Max and
Frieda lived together as husband and wife. While Frieda was a housewife
responsible for raising the couple's two children, Max, an electrician,
supported the family and for many years his salary included a tax
deduction to the Social Security fund.

After Max's death in 1971 both Frieda and Celia, who had had no
communications with Max for the last 20 years of his life, applied for
widow's benefits. The Secretary ruled in 1971 that, since New York courts
would consider Max's ex parte Mexican divorce ineffective in
dissolving his marriage with Celia, Celia was Max's widow. After a hearing
in 1973 the administrative law judge found that Max and Frieda's marriage
was entered in good faith and all other requirements of the deemed spouse
provision were satisfied. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B). However, the judge
held that Frieda, who had been receiving widow's benefits, could no longer
receive payments because Celia had been certified as Max's legal widow.

The maximum widow's benefit payable on Max's account was $165.20 monthly.
By virtue of her personal retirement account Celia was already receiving
$163.80 per month. Thus, pursuant to the operation of 42 U.S.C. §
402(k)(3)(A), Celia's estimated widow's benefit, $165.20, was reduced to
an amount equal to her present retirement payments, $163.80. Accordingly,
Celia was entitled to an increased monthly benefit of $1.40.
yable on Max's account was $165.20 monthly.
By virtue of her personal retirement account Celia was already receiving
$163.80 per month. Thus, pursuant to the operation of 42 U.S.C. §
402(k)(3)(A), Celia's estimated widow's benefit, $165.20, was reduced to
an amount equal to her present retirement payments, $163.80. Accordingly,
Celia was entitled to an increased monthly benefit of $1.40.

Reversing the district court's grant of the government's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, the Second Circuit stated that "we cannot agree
that Congress intended a 'deemed' widow in Frieda's position to forfeit all benefits merely because an infinitesimal fraction of the full
widow's benefit that Max paid for from his hard earned wages was required
to go his 'legal widow.'" Rosenberg v. Richardson , 538 F.2d at 490.
The Court of Appeals outlined general principles of statutory
interpretation and reasoned that the result -- Celia was entitled to $1.40
and Frieda was allowed $163.80 as the residual balance of the full widow's
benefit -- was consonant with a liberal construction of the insurance
program of the Social Security Act, Max's expectation that the benefiting
widow would be Frieda, and the language of the Act.

We conclude that Mary Davis, unlike Frieda Rosenberg, must receive
nothing. There are numerous, sharp and crucial factual distinctions
between the cases. The case before us does not involve "an inadvertent and
unforeseen error" -- poor legal advice -- and the "extraordinary
circumstances" which dominate the Rosenberg opinion. [11] The critical
factor which compelled that court to divide the benefits between the legal
and deemed widows was the fact that the first wife Celia, the legal widow,
could only benefit by $1.40 or by less than 1% of the widow's benefit. In
great contrast Novella, the legal widow and first wife of Henry, may enjoy
a large $217.00 increase in overall benefits and receive more than 57% of
the payable widow's benefit.
h compelled that court to divide the benefits between the legal
and deemed widows was the fact that the first wife Celia, the legal widow,
could only benefit by $1.40 or by less than 1% of the widow's benefit. In
great contrast Novella, the legal widow and first wife of Henry, may enjoy
a large $217.00 increase in overall benefits and receive more than 57% of
the payable widow's benefit.

Even if the factual chasm that separates the cases were not so wide, we
would part company with the reasoning of the Second Circuit. Although
there is a place for the liberal construction of some laws, there is
little room here. No legislative history, statutory language or case law
under Section 416(h)(1)(B) suggest that any strength should be accorded an
insured individual's expectations in a clash with state law. In fact the
Supreme Court has cautioned that an employee's noncontractual interest in
the Social Security system, financed by tax contributions, cannot be
analogized to the contractual rights in a private insurance plan based on
premium payments. Flemming v. Nestor , 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960). We
are similarly unconvinced by the rationale, essential to the Court of
Appeals' conclusion, which asserts that the legislative history "leaves no
room for doubt" that congress intended to terminate a deemed widow's
benefits only if the legal widow could receive the "full benefit."
Rosenberg at 491. The legislative history which is cited, H. Rep. No.
1799, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in
re similarly unconvinced by the rationale, essential to the Court of
Appeals' conclusion, which asserts that the legislative history "leaves no
room for doubt" that congress intended to terminate a deemed widow's
benefits only if the legal widow could receive the "full benefit."
Rosenberg at 491. The legislative history which is cited, H. Rep. No.
1799, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in

[1960] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3608, 3684, lends little, if any,
support for the assertion, and such an interpretation ignores the plain
meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(k)(3)(A) and
416(h)(1)(B). [12] See also
Martin, Social Security Benefits for Spouses , 63 Cornell L. Rev.
789, 819 (1978) ( Rosenberg decision is "unsupportable"). The
Congress, recognizing that persons may have entitlement to multiple
benefits, enacted Section 402(k)(3)(A) to establish a maximum level of
benefits. See footnote 18. There is no authority that persuades us that
Congress intended to suspend the operation of the statute for a new
category, the deemed spouse. We are convinced that there can be no deemed
spouse receiving benefits if the legal widow is entitled to the payment,
42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B), as we cannot close our eyes to clear
congressional intendment. The Congress declined to command the Social
Security Administration to pay widow's insurance benefits to two widows,
and so must we. In some ways this is a disturbing and inequitable result.
We understand the desire of the district court to work out a division of
the payments. It may not have been a bad solution, but we do not believe
it to be good law.

The finding by the Secretary, affirmed by the district court, that under
Illinois law Novella Davis is the legal widow is affirmed. The order by
the district court awarding Mary Davis widow's insurance benefits is
reversed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
rict court to work out a division of
the payments. It may not have been a bad solution, but we do not believe
it to be good law.

The finding by the Secretary, affirmed by the district court, that under
Illinois law Novella Davis is the legal widow is affirmed. The order by
the district court awarding Mary Davis widow's insurance benefits is
reversed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

[1] The decree, dated June 15,
1938, declared: "It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the
court that the complainant be given and can have a divorce from "bed and
board" from the defendant, with the reservation that the complainant may
be granted an absolute divorce at a subsequent term."

[2] Before the administrative
law judge at the original hearing on January 6, 1975, Mary Davis answered
the following questions under oath:

At the second, supplemental hearing on May 13, 1977, Mary testified
again:

[3] Henry was actually
incarcerated for his failure to make separate maintenance payments.

[4] Section 416(h)(1)(A)
states:

An applicant is the . . . widow . . . of a fully or currently insured
individual for purposes of this subchapter if the courts of the State in
which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant
files an application, or, if such insured individual is dead, the courts
of the State in which he was domiciled at the time of death, or, if such
insured individual is or was not so domiciled in any State, the courts of
the District of Columbia, would find that such applicant and such insured
individual were validly married at the time such applicant files such
application or, if such insured individual is dead, at the time he died.
If such courts would not find that such applicant and such insured
individual were validly married at such time, such applicant shall,
nevertheless be deemed to be the . . . widow . .
t of Columbia, would find that such applicant and such insured
individual were validly married at the time such applicant files such
application or, if such insured individual is dead, at the time he died.
If such courts would not find that such applicant and such insured
individual were validly married at such time, such applicant shall,
nevertheless be deemed to be the . . . widow . . . of such insured
individual if such applicant would, under the laws applied by such courts
in determining the devolution of intestate personal property, have the
same status with respect to the taking of such property as a . . . widow .
. . of such insured individual.

[5] Section 416(h)(1)(B)
provides in relevant part:

[If] it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such
applicant in good faith went through a marriage ceremony with [the wage
earner] resulting in a purported marriage between them which, but for a
legal impediment not known to the applicant at the time of such ceremony,
would have been a valid marriage, and such applicant and the insured
individual were living in the same household at the time of death of such
insured individual . . . such purported marriage shall be deemed to be a
valid marriage. The provisions of the preceding sentence shall not apply
(i) if another person is or has been entitled to a benefit . . . on the
basis of the wages and self-employment income of such insured individual
and such other person is (or is deemed to be) a . . . widow . . . of such
insured individual under subparagraph (A) [the state law test] at the time
such applicant files the application, or (ii) if the Secretary determines,
on the basis of information brought to his attention, or (ii) if the
Secretary determines, on the basis of information brought to his
attention, that such applicant entered into such purported marriage with
such insured individual with knowledge that it would not be a valid
marriage. The entitlement to a monthly benefit . .
ant files the application, or (ii) if the Secretary determines,
on the basis of information brought to his attention, or (ii) if the
Secretary determines, on the basis of information brought to his
attention, that such applicant entered into such purported marriage with
such insured individual with knowledge that it would not be a valid
marriage. The entitlement to a monthly benefit . . . based on the wages
and self-employment income of such insured individual, of a person who
would not be deemed to be a . . . widow . . . of such insured individual
but for this subparagraph, shall end with the month before the month (i)
in which the Secretary certifies . . . that another person is entitled to
a benefit . . . . For purposes of this subparagraph, a legal impediment to
the validity of a purported marriage includes only an impediment (i)
resulting from the lack of dissolution of a previous marriage or otherwise
arising out of such previous marriage or its dissolution, or (ii)
resulting from a defect in the procedure followed in connection with such
purported marriage.

[6] The administrative law judge
made no explicit factual finding regarding the status of Mary Davis as a
deemed widow, but the record as a whole would substantially support a
finding that, if Novella Davis had not applied for widow's benefits, Mary
would have qualified as a deemed widow. In his brief the secretary
concedes that the same conclusion is inescapable.

[7] The administrative law
judge's finding that Mary was disabled was not appealed by the Secretary
and is, therefore, not a subject in this appeal.

[8] Section 402(k)(3)(A)
provides in pertinent part:
ing that, if Novella Davis had not applied for widow's benefits, Mary
would have qualified as a deemed widow. In his brief the secretary
concedes that the same conclusion is inescapable.

[7] The administrative law
judge's finding that Mary was disabled was not appealed by the Secretary
and is, therefore, not a subject in this appeal.

[8] Section 402(k)(3)(A)
provides in pertinent part:

This section, responsible for the creation of the Rosenberg "windfall," is central to the congressional scheme of allocated enacted
"to avoid duplicate benefit payments." H. Rep. No. 1300, 81st Cong., 1st
Sess. 58 (1949). Where there is simultaneous entitlement to multiple
benefits, the Congress has thus decided to place a ceiling on the maximum
benefits payable.

[9] The plaintiff does not
question Henry's residencies before 1938 or after 1940.

[10] In accordance with
Circuit Rule 16(e), this opinion has been circulated among the active
members of this court. A majority does not favor rehearing in banc .
Judge Luther M. Swygert voted to rehear the issue in banc .

[11] The Court of Appeals
noted the "extraordinary circumstances" of the case:

It is therefore difficult to understand why the Government has, in this
case, spent seven years and untold thousands of dollars in administrative
and legal fees in a seemingly rigid and arbitrary attempt to deprive
Frieda Rosenberg of the modest Social Security widow's benefits Max
Rosenberg paid for and wished her to receive.
Appeals
noted the "extraordinary circumstances" of the case:

It is therefore difficult to understand why the Government has, in this
case, spent seven years and untold thousands of dollars in administrative
and legal fees in a seemingly rigid and arbitrary attempt to deprive
Frieda Rosenberg of the modest Social Security widow's benefits Max
Rosenberg paid for and wished her to receive.

We should observe at the outset, that the Government concedes that Max
and Frieda lived together as man and wife for thirty-six years, from the
time of their marriage in 1935 to Max's death in 1971. Nor is it disputed
that their wedding was undertaken in good faith reliance upon legal advice
that Max's Mexican divorce from his former wife, Celia Rosenberg, would be
recognized as valid. Because the lawyer's advice seems to have been in
error, Celia Rosenberg, as Max's "legal" widow, has been permitted to
augment her own old age insurance benefits by the insignificant sum of
$1.40 per month. Yet, Max Rosenberg sacrificed a significant portion of
his weekly paychecks over decades of employment to build a widows benefit
fund of $165.20 per month for Frieda, the woman he regarded for thirty-six
years as his lawful wife. It is not consistent with the beneficent spirit
of the Social Security Act that the Treasury should confiscate this entire
fund, intended to serve as a means of support for a 69-year-old woman,
merely because an inadvertent and unforeseen error allowed another, under
the extraordinary circumstances present here, to have a claim on less than
1% of the fund. We cannot agree with the Secretary that the payment of
$1.40 a month to Celia must cause Frieda to forfeit the entire $165.20 to
the Treasury as a windfall.

538 F.2d at 488.
rve as a means of support for a 69-year-old woman,
merely because an inadvertent and unforeseen error allowed another, under
the extraordinary circumstances present here, to have a claim on less than
1% of the fund. We cannot agree with the Secretary that the payment of
$1.40 a month to Celia must cause Frieda to forfeit the entire $165.20 to
the Treasury as a windfall.

538 F.2d at 488.

[12] The Rosenberg opinion mistakenly suggested that 42 U.S.C. § 402(k)(3)(A) allows the
Treasury to "confiscate" a "windfall." The actual recipient of the
remainder, after the widow's benefit payable on the deceased husband's
account is reduced by the amount a widow receives on her own earnings
account, is the Social Security Trust Fund which must pay the benefits and
expenses of the program. See Flemming v. Nestor , 363 U.S. 603, 609
(1960).

## Nearby sections

- [SSR 60-17 SSR 60-17. OLDEST RECORD DISAGREES WITH CONVINCING, MORE RECENT EVIDENCE OF AGE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_60_17.md)
- [SSR 66-17c SSR 66-17c: SECTIONS 202(e)(1) and 202(j)(1). -- APPLICATION -- ORAL INQUIRY ABOUT BENEFITS -- NONESTOPPEL OF ADMINISTRATION](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_66_17c.md)
- [SSR 67-8 SSR 67-8: SECTION 202(e) and 216(c). -- WIDOW'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- DEFINITION OF WIDOW -- ENTITLEMENT TO WIDOW'S INSURANCE ANNUITY UNDER RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT IN MONTH BEFORE REMARRIAGE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_67_8.md)
- [SSR 68-15 SSR 68-15: Rescinded 1978](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_68_15.md)
- [SSR 68-16 SSR 68-16: Rescinded 1978](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_68_16.md)
- [SSR 68-71 SSR 68-71: Rescinded 1978](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_68_71.md)
- [SSR 69-4 SSR 69-4: Rescinded 1978](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_69_4.md)
- [SSR 70-19c SSR 70-19c: SECTION 202(e) (1). -- REMARRIAGE BEFORE AGE 60 -- ESTOPPEL -- RELIANCE BY WIDOW ON INFORMATION FROM AN OFFICIAL SOURCE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_70_19c.md)
- [SSR 71-21c SSR 71-21c: SECTIONS 202(e) and 216(c)(5). -- WIDOW'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- "DURATION OF MARRIAGE" REQUIREMENT -- CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE'S NONRECOGNITION OF COMMON-LAW MARRIAGES](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_71_21c.md)
- [SSR 71-52 SSR 71-52: Sections 202(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(1) — Filing For All Benefits — Widow's Insurance Benefits](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_71_52.md)
- [SSR 72-3 SSR 72-3: SECTIONS 202(e)(1) and 216(h)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C.A. 402(E)(1) and 416(h)(1)(A)). -- RELATIONSHIP -- VALIDITY OF DIVORCE OBTAINED OUTSIDE OF STATE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_72_3.md)
- [SSR 72-4c SSR 72-4c: SECTIONS 202(e) and 223 (42 U.S.C. 402(e) and 42 U.S.C. 423). -- DISABLED WIDOW'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- SEVERITY OF IMPAIRMENT -- ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN ANY GAINFUL ACTIVITY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_72_4c.md)
- [SSR 72-52 SSR 72-52: SECTIONS 202(e) and 216(c)(5) (42 U.S.C. 402(e) and 416(c)(5). -- WIDOW'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- "DURATION OF MARRIAGE" REQUIREMENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_72_52.md)
- [SSR 72-55 SSR 72-55c: SECTIONS 202(e)(1) and 205(c)(5)(A) and (B) (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(1) and 405(c)(5)(A) and (B)). -- REVISION OF EARNINGS RECORD AFTER "FINAL DECISION" -- TIME LIMITATION -- CONSTITUTIONALITY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_72_55.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_80_9c. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.