Campbell

Opinion by Judge WALLACE; Dissent by Judge ALDISERT.

Cody Campbell appeals from a denial of benefits as an alleged surviving child of deceased wage earner Lowell E. Schmidt, under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act). 42 U.S.C. § 402 (d). The district court exercised jurisdiction to review this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), and affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying Campbell’s claim for benefits. Campbell timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

I

The district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits is reviewed de novo. Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir.1997) (Jamerson ). The Commissioner’s decision is upheld so long as it is free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir.1996).

Campbell was born on March 22, 1985, in Salem, Oregon, and has always resided in Oregon. His mother is LaRae Lopez, and his father is alleged to be Schmidt, even though no name is listed on the birth certificate as father.

In California, the Humboldt County District Attorney filed a proceeding on behalf of…

dissenting:

The majority and I view this case through different lenses. In this Social Security entitlement case in which the deceased putative father had been domiciled in California and the child claimant is from Oregon, I believe that the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 416 (h)(2)(A) require the Commissioner and a reviewing court to make a choice of law analysis to determine whether the laws of California or Oregon govern the grant of Child’s Insurance Benefits under Title 11 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402 (d). Applying this analysis I would hold that the law of Oregon, and not California, should apply.

The outcome of this case rests on the interpretation to be given to 42 U.S.C. § 416 (h)(2)(A). The majority holds that this statute merely directs the Commissioner of Social Security to apply the intestacy law of the state in which a decedent was domiciled at the time of his death. I construe the statute as directing the Com *895 missioner, in cases in which the decedent and his putative child were domiciled in different states, to apply the whole law of the state where the decedent father was domiciled, including its choice of law precepts. Because application of…