On March 13, 1993, Rhonda Gillett (plaintiff/appellant), 32, a student, and Robert Netting, 59, a professor of anthropology, were married. They lived in Tucson, Arizona, and they began trying to conceive a child. After Rhonda suffered two miscarriages, she was diagnosed with medical conditions which interfered with her ability to conceive a child and to carry the child to full term without medical intervention. Thereafter, she began fertility treatments.
In mid-December 1994, Robert was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a form of cancer. Rhonda and Robert jointly decided to continue with their efforts to have a child. On December 16, 1994, Robert was taken to the emergency room in severe pain. His treating physician recommended that he immediately undergo chemotherapy treatment for the cancer. Because the chemotherapy could have rendered him sterile, Robert delayed treatment so he could deposit and preserve his sperm for Rhonda's fertility treatments.
Throughout Robert's illness, Rhonda continued with her fertility treatments. Robert died on February 4, 1995.
After Robert's death, Rhonda's doctor performed an in vitro fertilization procedure on December 19, 1995. The embryo transfer occurred on December 21, 1995, and on August 6, 1996, Rhonda gave birth to twins, a female named Juliet and a male named Piers.
In March 1997, Robert's estate was distributed. Each of Robert's three children from his previous marriage received one-sixth of his retirement account. Rhonda received the rest of the account, her and Robert's house in Tucson, and the remainder of the estate. Rhonda also received proceeds as beneficiary from a life insurance policy which she used to provide for the twins.
Gillett-Netting filed a complaint in district court, alleging that the decision denying Juliet and Piers Social Security benefits was not supported by substantial evidence, was not in accordance with the law, and denied them equal protection of the laws. The district court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner of Social Security, holding that Juliet and Piers do not qualify for child's insurance benefits because they are not Netting's "children" under the Act and they were not dependent on Netting at the time of his death. Gillett-Netting appealed. Discuss the issues the court must decide.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of On March 13, 1993, Rhonda Gillett (plaintiff/appellant), 32, a student, and Robert Netting, 59, a professor of anthropology, were married. They lived in Tucson, Arizona, and they began trying to conceive a child. After Rhonda suffered two miscarriages, she was diagnosed with medical conditions which interfered with her ability to conceive a child and to carry the child to full term without medical intervention. Thereafter, she began fertility treatments.
In mid-December 1994, Robert was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a form of cancer. Rhonda and Robert jointly decided to continue with their efforts to have a child. On December 16, 1994, Robert was taken to the emergency room in severe pain. His treating physician recommended that he immediately undergo chemotherapy treatment for the cancer. Because the chemotherapy could have rendered him sterile, Robert delayed treatment so he could deposit and preserve his sperm for Rhonda's fertility treatments.
Throughout Robert's illness, Rhonda continued with her fertility treatments. Robert died on February 4, 1995.
After Robert's death, Rhonda's doctor performed an in vitro fertilization procedure on December 19, 1995. The embryo transfer occurred on December 21, 1995, and on August 6, 1996, Rhonda gave birth to twins, a female named Juliet and a male named Piers.
In March 1997, Robert's estate was distributed. Each of Robert's three children from his previous marriage received one-sixth of his retirement account. Rhonda received the rest of the account, her and Robert's house in Tucson, and the remainder of the estate. Rhonda also received proceeds as beneficiary from a life insurance policy which she used to provide for the twins.
Gillett-Netting filed a complaint in district court, alleging that the decision denying Juliet and Piers Social Security benefits was not supported by substantial evidence, was not in accordance with the law, and denied them equal protection of the laws. The district court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner of Social Security, holding that Juliet and Piers do not qualify for child's insurance benefits because they are not Netting's "children" under the Act and they were not dependent on Netting at the time of his death. Gillett-Netting appealed. Discuss the issues the court must decide.

On March 13, 1993, Rhonda Gillett (Plaintiff/appellant), 32, a Student