Page images
PDF
EPUB

2

Widow's Insurance Benefits

Definition of widow-Entitlement to widow's insurance annuity under
Railroad Retirement Act in month before remarriage
Determination of benefit amount where widow has remarried
Remarriage of widow before age 60-Estoppel-Reliance by widow on
information from an official source

"Surviving divorced wife"-Duration and continuity of marriage
Widow entitled to disability insurance benefits subject to workmen's
compensation reduction-withdrawal of application

Widower's Insurance Benefits

Point at which one-half support requirement must be met

Mother's Insurance Benefits

In her care-Full-time student over age 18

Reentitlement after remarriage and divorce-Effective date of divorce
Termination due to remarriage

Parent's Insurance Benefits

Support requirement

One-half support-Burden of proof

Unlimited extension of time for filing proof of support upon showing
"good cause"-Prospective life of application

Lump-Sum Death Payment

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Relationship-Acknowledgement or recognition of parent-Puerto Rico

Payment to legal guardian of deceased incompetent

"Living in the same household"

[ocr errors]

Payment to funeral home precluded by potentially entitled

surviving spouse

107

Proceeds of a contractual obligation, plan, system, or general practice
paid direct to funeral home

109

Special Age 72 Payments

Governmental pension system-Teacher's Retirement Fund
Eligibility for Teacher's Annuity purchased from personal funds not
cause for offset

110

112

Effect on claimant's eligibility where application not filed by spouse who
is eligible for periodic benefit under governmental pension system
Reduction because of eligibility for Veteran's Administration Pension
Reduction due to commutation of periodic pension
Reduction because of eligibility for governmental pension
For uninsured individuals-Reduction because of eligibility for
government pension

114

116

117

119

122

For uninsured individuals-Reduction because of eligibility for government pension

123

For uninsured individuals-Suspension for payments under public

assistance

124

Wife's Insurance Benefits

SECTIONS 202(a), 202(b), 202(k), and 202(q).—WIFE'S INSURANCE BENEFIT SIMULTANEOUS ENTITLEMENT OF WIFE TO OLD-AGE INSURANCE BENEFITS BENEFIT AMOUNT

20 CFR 404.305, 404.315, and 404.407

SSR 69-13

The worker became entitled, at age 62, to old-age insurance benefits, reduced pursuant to section 202(q) of the Social Security Act because of her early retirement. Subsequently, in January 1967, her husband's old-age insurance benefit was increased to an amount which was more than twice the amount of her own old-age insurance benefit and, accordingly, she then became eligible for wife's insurance benefits. In June 1967, she filed an application for wife's insurance benefits. Held, since the worker had established entitlement to old-age benefits before she was 65, her wife's benefits are subject to two consecutive reductions: the first, as provided by section 202(q)(3) of the Act, being the amount by which her old-age benefit was reduced because of her pre-age 65 entitlement; and the second, as provided by section 202(k)(3)(A) of the Act, being the amount of her old-age benefit.

R, a woman, filed application and became entitled to an old-age insurance benefit beginning with April 1957, the month she attained age 62. Since R had not at the time of her application reached age 65, the retirement age, it had been necessary to reduce her primary insurance amount of $47.90 by 36 (the number of months between ages 62 and 65) times five-ninths of one percent, as required by section 202 (q) (1) of the Act, in order to determine the amount of her old-age insurance benefit. Thus, her monthly benefit was determined to be $38.40. By January 1967, amendments to the Act had increased her primary insurance amount to $55 and her monthly benefit to $44.80.

Section 202 (q), referred to in the above-cited section of the Act, relates to the reduction of old-age, disability, wife's, husband's, widow's, or widower's insurance benefit amounts under certain conditions. As applicable here, sections 202 (q) (1) (A) and 202 (q) (1) (B) provide for the reduction of old-age benefits, if an individual is entitled to old-age benefits in a month before the month in which he attained retirement age (which is defined in section 202 (q) (9), as age 65 for old-age insurance benefits) by the following method:

(A) 5/9 of 1 percent of such amount if such benefit is an old age * insurance benefit, * * * multiplied by

(B) (i) the number of months in the reduction period for such benefit (determined under paragraph (6)), if such benefit is for a month before the month in which such individual attains retirement age,

R's husband, H, also filed application and became entitled to an old-age insurance benefit which had been increased by recomputation and, in January 1967, was $112.40. In June 1967, R filed application for wife's insurance benefits as H's wife and was awarded a payment of $1.20 a month effective January 1967. R contended, however, that she should be paid a monthly benefit equal to one-half that of H, which as of January 1967, would be $56.20. (Prior to January 1967, H's primary insurance amount was only $87.80 and, since R's primary insurance amount ($55) had exceeded one

half of that amount, she could not be entitled to wife's insurance benefits before such month. Section 202(b) (1) (E) of the Act).

The question thus presented is whether R, who was simultaneously entitled to more than one monthly benefit, was paid the highest possible amount as a wife.

The requirements for entitlement to old-age benefits are contained in section 202 (a) of the Act, which provides that every individual who has attained age 62, is fully insured and has filed an application for old-age insurance benefits, shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, equal to his primary insurance amount, except as provided in section 202 (q) of the Act.

The requirements for entitlement to wife's insurance benefits are set forth in section 202 (b) of the Act, which provides, among other requirements and as pertinent here, that where an individual is entitled to wife's insurance benefits the amount of the benefit shall be equal to one-half of the primary insurance amount of her husband except as provided in section 202 (q) of the Act.

As to reduction of wife's insurance benefits, section 202(q) (3) (A) and (B) provides as pertinent to this case:

(3) (A) If the first month for which an individual both is entitled to a wife's * ** * insurance benefit and has attained age 62 month for which such individual is also entitled to

is a

(i) an old-age insurance benefit (to which such individual was first entitled for a month before he attains age 65), * then in lieu of any reduction under paragraph (1) (but subject to the succeeding paragraphs of this subsection) such wife's insurance benefit for each month shall be reduced

as provided in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D). (B) For any month for which such individual is entitled to an old-age insurance benefit and is not entitled to a disability insurance benefit, such individual's wife's * * * insurance benefit shall be reduced by the sum of

(i) the amount by which such old-age insurance benefit is reduced under paragraph (1) for such month, * *

Under section 202 (q) (6), the "reduction period" for an individual's oldage insurance benefit is the period beginning with the first day of the first month for which such individual is entitled to such benefit, and ending with the last day of the month before the month in which the individual attains retirement age.

In addition to the foregoing, section 202(k) (3) (A) imposes a further reduction on payment by the following:

(3) (A) If an individual is entitled to an old-age ** * insurance benefit for any month and to any other monthly insurance benefit for such month, such other insurance benefit for such month, after any reduction under subsection (q) [section 202(q)] and any reduction under section 203(a), shall be reduced, but not below zero, by an amount equal to such oldage ✶✶✶insurance benefit (after reduction under such subsection (q) [section 202 (q)]).

As noted above, pertinent provisions of the Act provide for two consecu. tive reductions in the case of an individual who became entitled to old-age insurance benefits prior to age 65 and later to wife's insurance benefits. As

indicated by section 202 (q)(3) of the Act, the wife's insurance benefit must first be reduced by the sum by which her old-age insurance benefit was reduced under section 202 (q) (1) of the Act. Since R's primary insurance amount in January 1967 was $55 and had been reduced to $44.80 due to early retirement, resulting in a reduction of $10.20 ($55 minus $44.80), this same amount must be subtracted from the wife's insurance benefit of $56.20, leaving a benefit of $46 ($56.20 minus $10.20).

However, a further reduction must be made since section 202(k) (3) (A) provides that if an individual is entitled to an old-age benefit for any month and to any other monthly insurance benefit for such month, the other insurance benefit after the reduction under section 202 (q), supra, shall be reduced by an amount equal to the old-age benefit amount. In this case, the wife's insurance benefit is "[an] other monthly insurance benefit" and, therefore, the amount of R's old-age benefit, i.e., $44.80, must be subtracted from the $46 which represents her wife's insurance benefit. Such subtraction results in $1.20, which is the amount of wife's insurance benefit which can be paid to R.

Accordingly, since R is entitled as of January 1967 to an old-age insurance benefit of $44.80, it is held that R is also entitled as of January 1967 to $1.20 per month as a wife, which is payable in addition to her old-age insurance benefit of $44.80; thus, she is entitled to a monthly benefit total of $46.

SECTIONS 202(b) (1), 216(b) (2), and 216(h) (1) (B).-WIFE'S IN-
SURANCE BENEFITS ENTITLEMENT OF DEEMED SPOUSE UPON
DURATION-OF-MAR-

DIVORCE OF LEGAL SPOUSE-ONE-YEAR
RIAGE REQUIREMENT

20 CFR 404.1101, 404.1103

SSR 67-58

Where a woman in good faith and without knowledge of the worker's prior existing marriage, was ceremonially married to him in 1941, and continued to live with him until 1964 when the first marriage was dissolved by a final divorce which terminated the former wife's entitlement to wife's insurance benefits, held, immediately upon dissolution of the first marriage, the woman's marriage to the worker in 1941 is deemed to be a valid marriage under section 216(h) (1) (B) of the Act, and therefore, having already satisfied the one-year duration-of-marriage requirement of section 216(b) (2) of the Act, she meets the definition of "wife" in section 216(b) and may, upon filing application, become entitled to wife's insurance benefits.

R, the worker, and his wife, B, were ceremonially married in 1912 in Ohio. Another woman, L, in good faith and without knowledge of R's marriage to B, ceremonially married R in Missouri in 1941. This marriage was, or course, invalid because of R's undissolved marriage to B, and L's application for wife's insurance benefits, filed in 1958, was disallowed. B had previously filed as R's legal spouse and was awarded wife's insurance benefits. B's benefits continued until her marriage to R was terminated October 16, 1964, by divorce in Missouri. On October 21, 1964, L filed a new application for wife's insurance benefits as the legal spouse of R.

The question presented is at what point of time did L first meet the definition of "wife" under the Social Security Act and thus satisfy all requirements for entitlement to wife's insurance benefits on R's earnings record. All other requirements for entitlement were met.

Section 202(b) (1) of the Social Security Act provides for wife's insurance benefits to the wife (as defined in section 216(b) of the Act) of an individual entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits. Section 216(b), in pertinent part, defines the term "wife" as the wife of an indi vidual but only if she was married to him for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day on which her application for benefits is filed.

Under section 216(h) (1) (A) of the Act, a woman is the wife of a worker for purposes of entitlement to wife's insurance benefits on his earnings record if the courts of the State in which he is domiciled at the time she filed her application would find that either (1) the worker and she were validly married at that time r (2) she would have the same status as a wife with respect to a share in the distribution of his personal property if he had died intestate. The courts of Missouri would find that L did not meet either of the above tests, since her marriage to R was void due to his prior undissolved marriage.

However, under section 216(h) (1) (B) of the Act, as pertinent to this case, where a woman and a worker went through a marriage ceremony which resulted in a purported marriage between them, such purported marriage may be considered a valid marriage for purposes of section 216(b) if the woman in good faith went through a marriage ceremony with the worker not knowing of a legal impediment which made the marriage invalid and the legal impediment resulted from the continued existence of a prior marriage of either party, arose out of the dissolution of the prior marriage, or from a procedural defect in the woman's ceremonial marriage to the worker; and she was living in the same household with the worker when her application was filed.

In this case, the above conditions were met at the time L filed her original application in 1958. However, a deemed wife may not qualify for wife's insurance benefits on the earnings record of a worker while another individual is entitled to benefits as his legal wife i.e., as a wife under section 216(h) (1) (A) of the Act. Thus, while B was R's legal wife under section 216(h)(1)(A) and, as such, was entitled to wife's insurance benefits on R's earnings record, L could not qualify for benefits as R's wife. However, once B's marriage to R was terminated by divorce on October 16, 1964, B was no longer R's legal wife. Further, since L's "deemed marriage” to R had taken place more than a year before she filed her application, the fact that she was not eligible to receive wife's benefits until R's divorce from B ended B's status as R's legal wife and that L did not become R's “wife” until the date of such divorce, does not mean L's deemed marriage to R may not be considered a "marriage" from the time it occurred, for purposes of section 216(b) (2) (which prescribes the one-year requirement). Therefore, in October 1964, the month she filed her application, L had already met the one-year duration-of-marriage requirement in section 216 (b) (2) of the Act.

« PreviousContinue »