Advertisement

April 17, 2014

Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Certified Question in Social Security Case

The case of Mattison v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 4:05-cv-00079 (W.D. Mich.) (Enslen, J.) finds itself in an interesting place today—before the Michigan Supreme Court.   The social security survivor's benefits case, which is pending before Judge Enslen in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, is before the Michigan tribunal for resolution of a certified question of Michigan law.

The underlying case involves a claim for social security survivor's benefits for two minor children, M.M and M.M.  The children were conceived by Mrs. Mattison through artificial insemination shortly after her husband's death, using sperm that had been banked by Mr. Mattison.  The Social Security Administration denied the application for benefits, and an Administrative Law Judge upheld the denial.  The ALJ reasoned that the children were ineligible for benefits under the Social Security Act because they could not inherit from Mr. Mattison under Michigan intestacy law.  This lawsuit followed.

Under the Social Security Act, an individual who is the "child" of an insured individual and is dependent on him or her at the time of death is entitled to survivor's benefits.  Whether one qualifies as a "child" depends on the laws of the state where the individual was domiciled at the time of his death.  Since Mr. Mattison was domiciled in Michigan at the time of his death, Michigan law applies.  Because this question is not settled under Michigan law, the parties asked Judge Enslen to certify the issue to the Michigan Supreme Court for a ruling.  The Court agreed and certified the following issue:

"Whether M.M. and M.M., conceived after the death of Jeffery Mattison via artificial insemination using his sperm, can inherit from Jeffrey Mattison as his children under Michigan intestacy law."

The ruling has the potential to affect many other areas of law, not just social security benefits.  But the case is particularly intriguing to court-watchers because very few Michigan Supreme Court cases come by way of certified questions from federal courts.

© 2014 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Stephen F. MacGuidwin, Varnum Law Firm, Litigation Attorney
Associate

After graduating first in his class from the Michigan State University College of Law, Steve clerked for the Honorable Raymond W. Gruender of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Steve draws upon his background in business and technology to help his clients resolve professional disputes. He has significant experience practicing in federal and state courts in Michigan.

616/336-6952

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.