Photo: VCG

When his father died in a work-related accident, he was still a frozen embryo, later his mother implanted and gave birth to him—Can he claim survivor's benefits? Recently, a court in Huai'an, East China's Jiangsu Province concluded a case concerning survivor's benefits, legally recognizing the in vitro fertilization (IVF) child as a dependent of the deceased worker and ruling that the social insurance center must pay monthly survivor's benefits until the child turns 18, Legal Daily reported Sunday.  

According to Legal Daily, in November 2019, Chen and his wife Guo sought medical assistance for infertility and underwent assisted reproductive blastocyst cultivation, including IVF and embryo transfer, resulting in the freezing of nine embryos. During the process of waiting for the embryo transfer procedure, Chen died in a work-related accident. Guo later chose to proceed with implanting one of the frozen embryos and gave birth to a son, Xiao Kai (pseudonym), in January 2021, while the remaining eight embryos were destroyed.  

In May 2024, Guo, as Xiao Kai's legal representative, applied to the social insurance center for survivor's benefits. However, the center refused, arguing that at the time of Chen's death, Xiao Kai existed only as an in vitro fertilized embryo and did not fall under the category of a "posthumous child" as defined in related regulations. The center issued a decision on non-payment, which Guo contested on behalf of Xiao Kai, leading to a lawsuit.  

During the trial, Guo, as the legal representative, argued that Xiao Kai had both a biological and legal father-son relationship with Chen. The embryo transfer was part of a joint reproductive plan agreed upon by Chen and Guo, and child born from such shared intentions should have their rights protected by law.  

The social insurance center countered that current laws and regulations do not explicitly grant survivor's benefits to child born through posthumous thawed embryo transfers. Citing the principle that "no administrative action may be taken without legal authorization," it maintained that rejecting the application was justified.  

The court ruled that the rights to survival and development of minors should be equally protected and that differences in conception methods or medical intervention should not lead to discriminatory treatment. Xiao Kai, as a child born through embryo transfer, was no different from a posthumously conceived child—both were dependents who "relied on the deceased worker's financial support." The loss of his father's income qualified Xiao Kai for survivor's benefits, which aim to address the "disruption of sustained financial support." Thus, the court legally recognized Xiao Kai as a dependent of the deceased worker entitled to benefits.  

Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of Xiao Kai, ordering the social insurance center to pay over 60,000 yuan ($8369.88) in survivor's benefits covering the period from January 2021 to March 2025. From April 2025 onward, the center must continue monthly payments adjusted in accordance with Jiangsu's work-related injury insurance regulations until Xiao Kai turns 18. Neither party appealed the first-instance judgment, which has now taken effect.  

Legal Daily reported that Liu Feiran, deputy chief judge of the administrative division of Qingjiangpu district people's court and the presiding judge in this case, explained that in the absence of explicit legal provisions regarding survivor's benefits for children born from posthumous embryo transfers, the ruling should align with the legislative intent of work-related injury insurance: safeguarding the economic stability of workers' families. The core criteria for survivor's benefits are "the deceased worker being the primary provider" and "the dependent's lack of earning capacity." The system aims to ensure basic livelihood support for dependents left behind, preventing hardship due to the "disruption of sustained financial support" and upholding intergenerational care.  

In this case, although Xiao Kai was an in vitro embryo at the time of Chen's death, his conception was the result of a lawful medical decision jointly made by Chen and Guo. Fertilization and early development had already occurred before Chen's death; only the transfer procedure remained. Spatially, the embryo had not yet been implanted, but this did not fundamentally distinguish Xiao Kai from a naturally conceived posthumous child.  

Moreover, as a minor, Xiao Kai's rights to survival and development must be equally protected. The time gap caused by medical intervention should not negate the legal connection between Xiao Kai and Chen in terms of "imminent dependency" and "reliance on the worker's financial support." Denying benefits would subject children born through assisted reproductive technologies to discriminatory treatment based on their parents' reproductive choices, violating the principle of equality before the law.  

Liu emphasized that Guo, despite facing immense social, ethical, and economic pressures after her husband's death, chose to proceed with the embryo transfer—a decision that honored the couple's shared reproductive wishes, upheld familial ethical responsibilities, and demonstrated reverence for life. Forcing her to "bear the risk" of this courageous and humane choice would undermine the legitimacy of life continuation and the objectivity of parent-child relationships, conflicting with both legal principles and human compassion.