J. P. v.Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2010cv05553 - Document 20 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and dismissing the case with prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 J. P. by and through his guardian ad litem 12 LORENZA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. 17 Case No. CV 10-05553-JEM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY PROCEEDINGS 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On July 30, 2010, Plaintiff J.P., by and through his guardian ad litem, Lorenza 20 Ramirez, filed a complaint seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social 21 Security ( Commissioner ) denying Plaintiff s application for Social Security child survivor 22 benefits. The Commissioner filed an Answer on February 3, 2011. On May 16, 2011, the 23 parties filed a Joint Stipulation ( JS ). The matter is now ready for decision. 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties consented to proceed before this 25 Magistrate Judge. After reviewing the pleadings, transcripts, and administrative record 26 ( AR ), the Court concludes that the Commissioner s decision should be affirmed and the 27 case dismissed with prejudice. 28 BACKGROUND 1 2 Claimant Jevon A. Pratt ( Claimant or Plaintiff or J.P. ) is stated to be the minor 3 child of the deceased wage earner, Jerome Anthony Pratt. The application for survivor s 4 benefits filed on his behalf was denied initially on June 14, 2006, and on reconsideration on 5 August 10, 2006. (AR 16.) Claimant s mother, Lorenza Ramirez, then timely requested a 6 hearing. She failed to appear for a hearing scheduled on July 10, 2007, because she was ill 7 but appeared and testified at a hearing held on January 14, 2008, in Pasadena, California. 8 (AR 16.) She was not represented by counsel. (AR 16.) 9 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) Richard Urban issued a decision on January 24, 10 2008, finding that J.P. is not entitled to Social Security survivor s benefits. (AR 16-19.) The 11 Appeals Council denied the request for review on April 28, 2010. (AR 6-10.) 12 DISPUTED ISSUES 13 As reflected in the Joint Stipulation, the only issue Plaintiff raises as a ground for 14 reversal and remand is as follows: 15 16 17 18 1. Whether the ALJ properly considered application of California law to the issue of paternity presented. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court reviews the ALJ s decision to determine whether 19 the ALJ s findings are supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. Smolen v. 20 Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); see also DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 846 21 (9th Cir. 1991) (ALJ s disability determination must be supported by substantial evidence and 22 based on the proper legal standards). 23 Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla . . . but less than a 24 preponderance. Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 521-22 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson 25 v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a 26 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, 402 U.S. 27 at 401 (internal quotations and citation omitted). 28 2 1 This Court must review the record as a whole and consider adverse as well as 2 supporting evidence. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 Where evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ s decision 4 must be upheld. Morgan v. Comm r, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). However, a 5 reviewing court must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by 6 isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882 (quoting 7 Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 8 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). DISCUSSION 9 10 Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to Social Security child survivor benefits because 11 he would inherit his father s personal property under state intestacy law, one of the methods 12 for qualifying for survivor benefits under the Social Security Act. The Court disagrees. 13 The Social Security Act conditions the eligibility of children born out of wedlock to 14 survivorship benefits on a showing that the applicant is under 18 years of age and 15 dependent, within the meaning of the statute, at the time of the parents death. 42 U.S.C. § 16 402(d)(1). Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 497-98 (1976). Certain children, however, need 17 not prove actual dependency but will be deemed or presumed dependent if the wage earner 18 parent at this death was living with or contributing to the support of the child. 42 U.S.C. § 19 402(d)(3); Mathews, 427 U.S. at 498. 20 Additionally, any child who would be entitled to inherit the wage earner parent s estate 21 under applicable state intestacy law is considered to be dependent. Mathews, 427 U.S. at 22 498, 514. Section 416(e) defines a child. Section 416(h)(2)(A) provides that in determining 23 whether an applicant is a child the Commissioner will apply state intestacy law. Section 24 416(h)(3) provides that, if state intestacy law is inapplicable, the applicant must prove that 25 the insured parent has acknowledged the child as his, a court decree has done so or a court 26 has ordered support. Also, Section 402(d)(3) provides that a child deemed to be a child 27 pursuant to Section 416(h)(2) or 416(h)(3) shall be deemed to be legitimate and therefore 28 dependent. 3 1 The facts of this case are not in dispute. All parties agree that Jevon is the natural 2 child of Jerome Anthony Pratt. Subsequent to the ALJ hearing, Plaintiff presented DNA 3 evidence to the Appeals Council establishing Pratt s paternity with 99.999% probability. (AR 4 6.) The Commissioner does not contest that Jevon is Pratt s son. Also undisputed, 5 however, is that he never married Lorenza Ramirez and never received Jevon into his home, 6 held him out as his child, or provided any support for him. There was no actual dependency. 7 All parties agree that Jevon is not eligible for survivorship benefits under Section 8 416(h)(3). Plaintiff, however, contends that Jevon meets the safe harbor state law intestacy 9 provision of Section 416(h)(2)(A). 10 The relevant California intestacy statutes are found in California Probate Code Section 11 6450 et seq. Section 6450 provides that a relationship of parent and child exists for the 12 purpose of intestate succession where [t]he relationship of parent and child exists between 13 a person and the person s natural parents, regardless of the marital status of the parents. 14 (Emphasis added.) For purposes of determining whether a person is a natural parent, 15 Section 6453 provides: 16 (a) A natural parent and child relationship is established where that 17 relationship is presumed and not rebutted by the Uniform Percentage Act 18 (Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family 19 Code.) (b) A natural parent and child relationship is established pursuant 20 21 to any other provisions of the Uniform Percentage Act, except that the 22 relationship may not be established by an action under subdivision (c) of 23 Section 7630 of the Family Code unless any of the following conditions 24 exist: 25 (1) A court order was entered during the father s lifetime 26 declaring paternity. 27 28 4 1 (2) Paternity is established by clear and convincing evidence 2 that the father has openly held out the child as his own. 3 (3) It was impossible for the father to hold out the child as 4 his own and paternity is established by clear and convincing 5 evidence. 6 (c) A natural parent and child relationship is established pursuant 7 to Section 249.5. 8 Both the ALJ and the Appeals Council determined that Plaintiff does not meet the 9 requirements of the Uniform Parentage Act for establishing a natural parent and child 10 relationship. (AR 6, 17.) The Uniform Parentage Act is found at Section 7600 et seq. of the 11 California Family Code. Section 7611 provides that a man is presumed to be the natural 12 father of a child if he meets the conditions in Section 7540 (cohabitation) or 7570 (voluntary 13 paternity declaration) or there was an attempted or invalid marriage, or the father received 14 the child into his home and held him out as his own. The ALJ correctly determined that 15 factually Jevon s father does not meet any of the requirements of Section 7611. (AR 17.) 16 Plaintiff does not contest the ALJ s analysis. 17 Plaintiff, however, argues that Probate Code Section 6453 and Family Code Section 18 7611 are not determinative. He claims to be seeking a paternity determination pursuant to 19 California Family Code Section 7500 et seq., which is the Uniform Act On Blood Tests To 20 Determine Paternity. Section 7551 authorizes a court to order genetic tests in a civil action 21 or proceeding in which paternity is a relevant fact. Section 7555(a) establishes a rebuttal 22 presumption of paternity if the Court finds the paternity index is 100 or greater. Plaintiff s 23 DNA evidence submitted to the Appeals Council would satisfy that criterion. 24 Section 7500-7558, however, is not part of the Uniform Percentage Act. Section 25 6453, the State intestacy law, requires determinations of the existence of a natural parent 26 and child relationship to be established pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act. Plaintiff does 27 not explain how Section 7555(a) bears on the intestacy statute or would override Probate 28 5 1 Code Section 6453 and Family Code Section 7611. Paternity is not what is in dispute but its 2 legal sufficiency. 3 The California Court of Appeal, moreover, has rejected Plaintiff s argument that proof 4 of paternity is all that is needed to establish intestacy rights. Estate of Burden, 146 Cal. App. 5 4th 1021, 1030 (2007). Burden begins by noting that Section 6450 et seq. contains the 6 rules for determining whether there is a parent -child relationship for purposes of inheritance 7 by intestate succession. Id. at 1026. The Court then observed that it need not determine if 8 there was error in admitting DNA evidence because the right to intestate succession does 9 not turn on a judicial determination of paternity but rather on whether the father 10 acknowledged the child. Id. at 1030. Burden also cited another California case, Estate of 11 Sanders, 2 Cal.4th 462, 471 (1992), which denied a request for DNA testing, holding that by 12 its very language Section 6453(b)(2) does not provide any alternative means of establishing 13 a natural parent-child relationship or paternity. Although these cases do not address 14 Section 6453(a), their reasoning would be equally applicable and they support the Court s 15 basic conclusion that Section 6453 does not permit any other alternative than reliance on the 16 Uniform Parentage Act for establishing the natural parent-child relationship. Paternity and 17 DNA evidence of paternity by itself is not a means for doing so. Section 7555(a) is not part 18 of the Uniform Percentage Act. DNA evidence to prove paternity under Family Code Section 19 7555(a) may be relevant to establish custody or support during the father s lifetime but it is 20 not a sufficient basis by itself for establishing intestate succession under Section 6453. 21 Plaintiff s argument that paternity is a relevant fact in this proceeding is not the case. 22 Paternity is not by itself sufficient to establish a natural parent-child relationship under 23 California law. This Court s conclusion is consistent with a recent Ninth Circuit decision 24 which, in denying survivorship benefits to a posthumously conceived child, observed, 25 California law does not equate natural parent status with biological parenthood such that a 26 mere biological relationship is sufficient under California law to grant status as a natural 27 parent. Vernoff v. Astrue, 568 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2009). 28 6 1 The ALJ decision and Appeals Council decision were based on substantial evidence 2 and free of legal error. ORDER 3 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered affirming the decision of the 5 Commissioner of Social Security and dismissing the case with prejudice. 6 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 8 DATED: May 31, 2011 /s/ John E. McDermott JOHN E. MCDERMOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 27 28
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
