What happened in this case was the decedent, Donald Eugene Miller Jr. of Ohio, disappeared leaving a wife and kids behind. He also failed to pay any of his court ordered support, leaving the wife and children destitute.
Miller had been "last reported in Arcadia" his home town, in 1986. He testified that he had lost his job, decided to look elsewhere for work, and then it just "kind of went further than I ever expected it to." (I.e., Florida.) After he'd been missing for eight years, his ex-wife asked for the death decree under Ohio Revised Code section 2121.01 et seq, so their children could get Social Security death benefits. Judge Davis agreed. According to the report, Miller returned to Ohio in 2005, whereupon his parents informed him that he was dead. He's apparently been okay with that for some time, but told the court and Judge Davis that he would like to be alive again now, so he can get his Social Security card and driver's license back.
The Ohio statute that defines how to establish
a person is dead states that the finding can be reversed if the person is found
to be alive within three years after the decision. There is a major problem with this law, but
the problem is with the Ohio legislature who drafted the law rather than the
judge who rendered the decision which everyone is laughing about. Courts are bound to follow the law, even if
the statute is flawed or even absurd (something which happens more than you might imagine).
As a member of the Social Security bar, I've represented widows whose husbands disappeared, leaving the wife to establish
death in order to receive widows benefits. The last case dealt with a
widow receiving disability benefits. If she were able to prove her husband’s death, she
could obtain access to better medical care under Medicare, than
Medicaid. She could also obtain benefits from Social Security rather than welfare,
drawing from her husband’s earnings record. However, we had to establish a death in
Africa following his visit there for employment. It was not easy to prove the case, and it entailed visits to the consulate in Washington D.C., and contacting people in
other continents, most of whom spoke different languages. Not every country issues a
death certificate nor keeps as accurate records as we do in this country. We are very fortunate to have tools like Skype and “Google
translate”, but these are relatively recent innovations. Even with the innovations, an attorney and/or investigator needs to methodically build the case.
Let us go back to the case of Donald Eugene
Miller, Jr. of Ohio. There was a possibility that if the finding of death were
reversed, the widow and children would have to pay back the social security
benefits they received. It did not seem
any more likely that Mr. Miller was would pay the child support
he owed in the first place. Legally, the judge, because of the flawed
statute, could not recognize Mr. Miller as alive. Practically, to find him alive would allow him to profit from his wrongdoing. So the judge ruled against him. What do you think about the case?
Note: Since the time this article was originally written, a reader pointed out that an account also appears in the New York Times, and can be found here.
Note: Since the time this article was originally written, a reader pointed out that an account also appears in the New York Times, and can be found here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stay well until the next post.
Bob Gasparro
Bob Gasparro is an Elder Attorney. He can be reached at Robert.Gasparro@lifespanlegal.com or (484) 297-2050. Comments to this post, and ideas for future posts are welcome.
Tags, social security, death benefits, social
security widow benefits, deceased.
