the plain language of the Plan. Benefits payable to children are provided to the “family,” see Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 821 (1986) (defining “family” as “the body of persons who live in one house and under one head including parents[ and] children”); Black’s Law Dictionary 679 (9th ed.2009) (defining “family” as “[a] group consisting of parents and their children”), and the purpose of social security disability benefits is to replace income lost due to the wage earner’s inability to work. Accordingly, the district court correctly allowed Hartford to offset Fortune’s benefits by the amount awarded to her children. b. Public Policy Fortune’s public policy challenge is unpersuasive in light of our decision in Leonelli v. Pennwalt Corp., 887 F.2d 1195, 1198-99 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). See also Lamb v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co.,
recognizing general enforceability of plan provisions reducing benefits by amount of any social security benefits holding in postamendment case that offsetting social security retirement benefits against permanent total disability payments rationally related to reducing wagereplacement benefits for retired workers holding that use of social security benefits satisfied child support obligation holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of social security disability benefits holding that offset for social security retirement benefits does not include federal disability benefits and stating that there was no legislative intent to embody the entire subchapter of the social security act dealing with both disability benefits and old age benefits