Celestine v FSM Social Security Administration [2017] FMSC 21; 21 FSM R. 263 (Pon. 2017) (29 May 2017)

FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2013-007

ALPIHNA CELESTINE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA )
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________ )

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Beauleen Carl-Worswick
Associate Justice

Hearing: July 22, 2015
Decided: May 29, 2017

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Salomon M. Saimon, Esq.
Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
P.O. Box 129
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Defendant: Stephen V. Finnen, Esq.
P.O. Box 1450
Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Summary Judgment Grounds
Under FSM Civil Rule 56, a summary judgment motion will be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 265 (Pon. 2017).

Summary Judgment Procedure
Once the party moving for summary judgment presents a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence showing that a genuine issue of material fact remains for resolution. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 265 (Pon. 2017).

Administrative Law Judicial Review; Social Security

Anyone aggrieved by a Social Security Board final order may obtain a review of the order in the FSM Supreme Court trial division by filing in court, within 60 days after the entry of the order, a written petition praying that the order be modified or set aside in whole or in part. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 266 (Pon. 2017).

Administrative Law Judicial Review; Social Security
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the court must, on an appeal from an FSM administrative agency, hold unlawful and set aside agency actions and decisions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; or contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; or without substantial compliance with the procedures required by law. These provisions apply to all agency action unless Congress by law provides otherwise, and it applies to Social Security Administration appeals because the Social Security Act does not provide otherwise. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 266 (Pon. 2017).

Social Security Claims and Benefits
FSM Social Security benefits are not a property right, and all the proper steps and requirements must be fulfilled before an individual is eligible for benefits. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 266 (Pon. 2017).

Social Security Claims and Benefits
The process by which spousal benefits cease is governed under § 100.16 of the Socicurity rety regulations. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 267 (Pon. 2017).

Social Secu Claims and Benefits
If Social Security receives convincing evidence from any credibredible source that a surviving spouse who is receiving social security benefits has re-married, the surviving spouse benefits will cease unless the surviving spouse proves that he or she has not remarried. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 268 (Pon. 2017).

Administrative Law Judicial Review
Judicial review of an agency decision is confined to the record. Although the court may receive briefs, hear oral argument, and receive supplemental evidence, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency on factual questions and must give appropriate weight to the agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 268 (Pon. 2017).

Social Security Claims and Benefits
When, based on the administrative hearing and the evidence on the record, the Social Security Board’s decision to cease spousal benefits was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, it was therefore conclusive, and even though the plaintiff produced additional evidence to support her claim that she had not remarried, Social Security’s discontinuance of spousal benefits will be affirmed. Celestine v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 21 FSM R. 263, 268 (Pon. 2017).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

BEAULEEN CARL-WORSWICK, Associate Justice:

I. BACKGROUND

The defendant, Federated States of Micronesia Social Security Administration (herein "FSMSSA") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter on April 15, 2015. On June 5, 2015, the plaintiff, Alpihna Celestine (herein "Celestine") filed an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. The FSMSSA entered a Reply Supporting Motion for Summary Judgment on June 17, 2015.

A hearing on the pending motions was held on July 22, 2015. Steven V. Finnen, Esq., appeared on behalf of the FSMSSA, and Salomon M. Saimon, Esq., through the Micronesian Legal Services Corporation, appeared on behalf of Celestine. After considering the arguments presented during the hearing and the evidence on the record, the court grants the defendant’s summary judgment motion.

II. FACTS

Peter Celestine was a wage earner and made contributions to the FSMSSA. Peter Celestine was married to Alpihna Celestine. After the death of Peter Celestine, Alpihna Celestine received surviving spouse benefits pursuant to 53 F.S.M.C. 802.^[1] A letter dated February 11, 2010 issued by FSMSSA Administrator Alexander Narruhn notified Alpihna Celestine that her spousal benefits were on hold due to her remarriage pursuant to 53 F.S.M.C. 802(2).

On March 2, 2010, a notice was sent to Celestine informing her of her right to appeal the Administrators decision within sixty (60) days to the FSMSSA Board (herein "Board"). Salomon Saimon, through the Micronesian Legal Services Corporation, filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Celestine on March 18, 2010. The Board held a hearing on the matter on August 24, 2012, and a decision finding in favor to discontinue spousal benefits to Celestine was certified on December 18, 2012. Celestine filed suit on March 11, 2013.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under FSM Civil Rule 56, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FSM Civ. R. 56(c); Kyowa Shipping Co. v. Wade, 7 FSM R. 93, 95 (Pon. 1995); Kihara Real Estate, Inc. v. Estate of Nanpei, 6 FSM R. 48, 52 (Pon. 1993).

Once the party moving for summary judgment presents a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence showing that a genuine issue of material fact remains for resolution. Urban v. Salvador, 7 FSM R. 29, 31 (Pon. 1995); Wade, 7 FSM R. at 95; FSM v. Ponape Builders Constr., Inc., 2 FSM R. 48, 52 (Pon. 1985).

Any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board may obtain a review of the order in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia by filing in Court, within 60 days after the entry of the order, a written petition praying that the order be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of the petition shall be served on the Board, by service on its secretary or other designated agent, and thereupon the Board shall certify and file in Court a copy of the record upon which the order was entered. The findings of the Board as to the facts, if supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. If either party applies to the Court for leave to adduce additional material evidence and shows to the satisfaction of the Court that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce the evidence in the hearing before the Board or its authorized representatives, and that such evidence is competent, material, and substantial, the Court may order the additional evidence to be taken by the Board and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such conditions as the Court considers proper. The Board may modify its findings and order after receipt of further evidence together with any modified or new findings or order. The judgment of the Court upon the record shall be final, subject to review by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court upon petition of any aggrieved party, including the Board, within 60 days from judgment. 53 F.S.M.C. 708.

On an appeal from an FSM administrative agency, the court, under the Administrative Procedures Act, must hold unlawful and set aside agency actions and decisions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; or contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; or without substantial compliance with the procedures required by law. These Administrative Procedures Act provisions apply to all agency action unless Congress by law provides otherwise and it applies to the Social Security Administration appeals because no part of the Social Security Act provides otherwise. Alokoa v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 16 FSM R. 271, 276 (Kos. 2009).

IV. DISCUSSION

Social Security Benefits

As presented in the filings by the parties and as argued during the hearing on July 22, 2015, the first issue presented for the court’s consideration is to further define Social Security benefits, in line with the definition as provided in § 100.2 of the F regulations,ions, as amended in 2012. The court ruled on this issue in Neth v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 20 FSM R. 362 (Pon. 2016).^[2]

In Neth, the court hert held that Social Security benefits are not a property right and do not disburse automatically once a claim is filed, rather, a potential beneficiary must fulfill the requirements as set forth in Title 53 of the FSM Code and the FSMSSA regulations before being deemed eligible to receive benefits. Neth, 20 FSM R. at 367. In line with the decision in Neth, this court holds that FSM Social Security benefits are not a property right, and all the proper steps and requirements must be fulfilled before an individual is eligible for benefits.

Remarriage

The FSMSSA discontinued payments of spousal benefits to Celestine alleging that she has since remarried to one Wetson Benjamin (herein "Benjamin"). At the time of this appeal, Benjamin was also receiving spousal benefits for his deceased wife. Celestine argues that she is not married to Benjamin, thus, she is still eligible to receive deceased spousal benefits from the FSMSSA.

Remarriage is governed under the FSMSSA regulations § 100.2. particular section tion states

Remarriage is reviewed by FSMSSA under the same standards used to determine if a marriage has taken place, inng if the remarriage was statutory (ceremonial), customastomary, common law, or a deemed valid marriage. FSMSSA may discontinue benefits based on remarriage in certain situations, though such decision may be appealed by the beneficiary.

(emphasis added).

Celestine argues that the inclusion of common law marriage under the FSMSSA regulation is ultra vires because Pohnpei statutory law does not recognize common law marriages pursuant to the holding in In re Tokutake, 3A Pon. L.R. 444 (Pon. S. Ct. Tr. 1989), and the inclusion of common law marriage in the regulation has exceeded its permissible authority.^[3] Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 4.

The FSMSSA claims that because cohabitation was involved and the community knew of the cohabitation, both customary and common law marriage apply.^[4] Reply Supporting Mot. for Summ. J. at 5.

Under the plaintiff’s ultra vires argument, the court dealt with this issue in Louis v. FSM Social Sec. Admin., 20 FSM R. 268, 271-72 (Pon. 2015). In Louis, the plaintiff, similar to Celestine in the present matter, argued that the FSMSSA Board went beyond its statutory authority by adding common law marriage as a basis for denial of spousal benefits. Id. at 272. The court in Louis held that the denial was based on customary marriage, and not common law marriage. Id.

Here, the Board argues that both customary and common law marriage apply, which are defined under § 100.18 of tMSSA regulationstions. The court finds that even if common law marriage were excluded, the Board could still hold a valid claimd on customary marriage under § 100.18. Therefore, Celestine’s ultra vira vires argument is invalid.

The process by which spousal benefits cease is governed under § 100.16 of the regulatiohichwhich states, in part,

Re-Marriage: /i>: if you are a surviving spouse who is receiving social security benefits and FSMSSA receives convincindence from any credible source that you have re-marr-married, your surviving spouse benefits will cease unless you prove that you have not remarried.

Discontinuation of surviving spouse social security insurance benefits may be instituted by the Administrator based upon receipt of evidence from a credible source that the surviving spouse has remarried. Written notice of such discontinuation will be issued by the Administrator and served on the surviving spouse.

(emphasis added).

In the present matter, the transcript of the administrative hearing shows that Celestine stated that she had lived with Benjamin for "maybe a year, years." Remarriage Case Tr. at 5. A memorandum submitted by FSMSSA Investigation Officer, Kerman Alten, states that based on his investigation, Benjamin and Celestine were married. Mem. of Kerman Alten.

Onlino Lawrence, Branch Manager of the Pohnpei Social Security office, submitted a memorandum dated November 21, 2012 confirming Kerman Alten’s findings, and stated that both Benjamin and Celestine have had their spousal benefits put on hold because of their remarriage. Mem. of Onlino Lawrence. These evidence as submitted and considered by the Board are deemed to be from credible sources under § 100.16 of the FSMSSA regulations.

Judicial review of an agency decision is confined to the record, although the court may receive briefs, hear oral argument, and receive supplemental evidence. The court cannot stute its judgment for that that of the agency on factual questions and must give appropriate weight to the agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge. International Bridge Corp. v. Yap, 9 FSM R. 362, 365 (Yap 2000).

Therefore, based on the administrative hearing and the evidence on the record, the Board’s decision to cease spousal benefits to Celestine is affirmed. Pursuant to 53 F.S.M.C. 708, the court finds that the Board’s decision is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, and is therefore conclusive, and additional evidence was produced by Celestine under 53 F.S.M.C. 708 to support her claim that she has not remarried.

V. CONCLUSION

The court finds that there are no triable issues in this matter. The defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is HEREBY GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s Complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendant.

* * * *

---

^[1] § 802. Surv spouse benefits.fits.

(1) Every surviving spouse who:

(a) was married to an individual who died fully insured; and
(b) files an applon

shall be entitled to a surviving spouse insurancerance benefit, subject to the earnings test as defined in this subtitle.

(2) Surviving spouse benefit payments shall be paid for each month commencing with the month of death of the fully insured spouse and ending with the month preceding the month in which the surviving spouse dies or remarries.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, retroactive payments shall be limited to the 12 months immediately preceding the month in which the surviving spouse has submitted an application.

^[2] The ruling in Neth applies to several issues in the present matter, and in several companion cases. All proceedings in the Neth matter and the companion cases were argued simultaneously by the parties. These companion cases are: 1) Jeanive Neth v. FSMSSA, Civil Action No. 2013-006, 2) Alpina Celestine v. FSMSSA, Civil Action No. 2013-007, 3) Gay Jean Miguel v. FSMSSA, Civil Action No. 2013-008, 4) Reiel Eliam v. FSMSSA, Civil Action No. 2013-009, and 5) Adilihna Ikalap v. FSMSSA, Civil Action No. 2013-010.

^[3] The issue of the FSMSSA regulations as ultra vires is also discussed in Neth. Id. at 367-69.
^[4] Under 100.18 of the FSMSSA Regulations as amended in 2012, customary and common law marriages are defined as:

(a) Customary Marriage. Customary marriage is a marriage between two citizens or habitual residents of the same jurisdiction or State solemnized in accordance with the recognized custom of that jurisdiction or State. State court decisions on this subject may be consulted in cases of doubt, but such Court decisions shall not be given conclusive effect unless they are supported by written findings of fact.

(b) Common-law Marriage. A common-law marriage is one based not upon ceremony and compliance with legal formalities, but upon the agreement of two persons, legally competent to marry, to cohabit with each other in the same household, or as is sometimes referred to as "under one roof", who in fact cohabited in the same household for a period of no less than a year, with the intention of being husband and wife.