20 C.F.R. § 404.354
Your relationship to the insured
You may be related to the insured person in one of several ways and be entitled to benefits as his or her child, i.e., as a natural child, legally adopted child, stepchild, grandchild, stepgrandchild, or equitably adopted child. For details on how we determine your relationship to the insured person, see §§ 404.355 through 404.359.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases, 1982–2012 · leading case: Denise Desonier, Amanda M. Desonier v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1990).
Denise Desonier, Amanda M. Desonier v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1990). “20 C.F.R. § 404.354 (b). After reviewing the record, the AU found that Amanda was not the “child” of Phillis under Texas law, the State where he died.”
Beeler v. Astrue, 651 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2011). “The agency’s regulations refer to “child” in the first enumeration as a “natural child,” to distinguish such an applicant from an adopted child, stepchild, grandchild, or stepgrandchild.”
Astrue v. Capato Ex Rel. B. N. C., 132 S. Ct. 2021 (2012). “” 20 CFR §404.354 . Defining “[w]ho is the insured’s natural child,” §404.”
Finley v. Astrue, 270 S.W.3d 849 (Ark. 2008). “” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.354 and 404.355(a)(1). In deciding whether the claimant has “inheritance rights as the natural child of the insured[,]” the Commissioner uses “the law on inheritance rights that the State courts would use to decide whether you could inherit a child’s share…”
McKenzie Mary E. v. Harris, Patricia, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. of the United States, Mary McKenzie, 679 F.2d 8 (3rd Cir. 1982). “See 20 C.F.R. § 404.354 (b) (“To decide your relationship to the insured, we look to the laws of the State .”
Carter for Carter v. SEC. of Health & Human Servs., 625 F. Supp. 281 (E.D. Mich. 1985). “Referring to a newly adopted regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.354 , which was merely pending for consideration at the time of the AU’s decision, the Appeals Council stated that the Secretary interpreted 42 U.”
Adens v. Schweiker, 773 F.2d 545 (3rd Cir. 1985). “…that "If the insured is deceased, we look to the laws that were in effect at the time the insured worker died." 20 C.F.R. 404.354(b)”
Carrie Voss, as Parent of Justin J. Drapeau, a Minor, & Jesse L. Drapeau, a Minor v. Donna E. Shalala, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 32 F.3d 1269 (8th Cir. 1994). “20 C.F.R. § 404.354 (a). “In determining whether an applicant is the child .”
Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2004). “The Commissioner argues and the district court held that “child” is further defined by 42 U.”
Campbell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 1999). “Code § 6408 (repealed); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.354 (b) (stating that the Commissioner will look to the laws in place at the time of the insured’s death).”
Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 231 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Ariz. 2002). “According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.354 , “[an individual] may be related to the insured person in one of several ways and be entitled to benefits as his or her child, i.”
Schaefer v. Heckler, 792 F.2d 81 (7th Cir. 1986). “This policy has now been codified at 20 C.F.R. § 404.354 (b) (1985) which provides as follows: Use of State laws.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 404.354(b) — 2 cases
Adens v. Schweiker, 773 F.2d 545 (3rd Cir. 1985). “…that "If the insured is deceased, we look to the laws that were in effect at the time the insured worker died." 20 C.F.R. 404.354(b)”
Adens v. Schweiker, 773 F.2d 545 (3rd Cir. 1985).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.