Burns v. Miller Constr., 55 N.Y.2d 501 (1982)

A state law requiring children born out of wedlock to prove acknowledgment by the deceased father in addition to paternity and dependency to receive worker’s compensation benefits violates equal protection guarantees because the acknowledgment requirement does not substantially further any legitimate state interest.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of a state law requiring illegitimate children to prove acknowledgment by their deceased father to receive worker’s compensation benefits. The claimant, born after his father’s death, was denied benefits because he was not “acknowledged” by the decedent. The court held that while proof of paternity and dependency are permissible requirements, mandating acknowledgment violates equal protection, as it does not substantially further any legitimate state interest in the context of worker’s compensation.

Facts

Ricky Burns died in a construction accident. Approximately eight and a half months later, the claimant was born to Burns’s unmarried partner. The mother testified that she only informed Burns of her pregnancy on the day of his death. The claimant, through his mother, filed for death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Procedural History

The Workers’ Compensation Board initially denied the claim, finding the child was not an “acknowledged” child born out of wedlock. The Appellate Division remitted the case for clarification. The Board reaffirmed its denial based on the lack of acknowledgment. The Appellate Division upheld the statute, concluding that requiring proof of acknowledgment did not unconstitutionally discriminate against children born out of wedlock. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

Issue(s)

Whether subdivision 11 of section 2 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, requiring a child born out of wedlock to prove acknowledgment by the deceased father in addition to paternity and dependency to receive death benefits, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding

Yes, because the acknowledgment requirement does not substantially further any legitimate state interest, and thus unconstitutionally denies equal protection to children born out of wedlock.

Court’s Reasoning

The court first determined that the claimant could only receive benefits as an acknowledged, dependent child born out of wedlock, rejecting the argument that he could claim benefits as a posthumous child. The court then applied intermediate scrutiny, the appropriate standard for classifications based on legitimacy, to assess the constitutionality of the acknowledgment requirement. The court acknowledged the state’s interest in providing economic support to dependents of workers killed on the job, funded by employers and consumers. While the court found that requiring proof of paternity and dependency substantially furthered this interest by ensuring a legitimate relationship between the decedent and claimant and preventing fraudulent claims, it found that the acknowledgment requirement did not. The court reasoned that requiring acknowledgment does not prevent fraudulent claims beyond what is achieved by proving paternity and dependency. The court cited Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972), where the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana statute that relegated dependent, unacknowledged children born out of wedlock to a lower priority for worker’s compensation benefits. The New York Court of Appeals found the Weber analysis applicable, stating, “inasmuch as no legitimate State interest is substantially furthered by the requirement that the child be acknowledged by the father, the statute unconstitutionally denies equal protection to children born out of wedlock.” The court emphasized that dependency and acknowledgment are distinct concepts. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstated the claimant’s claim, and remanded the matter for a determination on paternity and dependency.