Title: Saldanha v. Saldanha

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARMEN H. SALDANHA, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 3, 2006 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   Court Below – Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   File No. CN02-08607 
BRIAN J. SALDANHA,  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
   Submitted:  December 20, 2006 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  December 27, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of December 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
1) 
In this appeal, the respondent-appellant, Carmen H. Saldanha 
(the “Wife”), contends the Family Court abused its discretion when it found 
that she could work full-time when it calculated the amount of alimony to be 
paid to her by the petitioner-appellee, Brian J. Saldanha (the “Husband”).  At 
the hearing before the Family Court, the Wife and her treating physician 
both testified she could only work part-time.  The Wife submits the 
undisputed evidence established she could only work part-time.  We agree.   
 
2
2) 
In its July 1, 2005, decision, the Family Court did not explain 
the basis for rejecting the expert opinion of the Wife’s treating physician that 
she was only able to work part-time.  We remanded this matter on August 
15, 2006, to the Family Court for further explanation.  The Family Court 
issued its Decision on Remand on October 11, 2006.  We directed the parties 
to file supplemental briefs.   
3) 
The Husband and the Wife were divorced by final decree of the 
Family Court on April 29, 2004, after nearly seventeen years of marriage.  
The Wife testified that she suffers from several debilitating illnesses, 
including endometriosis and osteoporosis.  Dr. Robert L. Meckelnburg has 
treated the Wife since 1997.  During his deposition, he testified that, due to 
her physical condition, the Wife’s activities as a nurse were limited. 
4) 
Since 1997, Dr. Meckelnburg has issued written notes 
regarding the Wife’s physical condition.  He testified that in 1997 he limited 
her work-related activities to a desk job because of her risk for spinal 
fractures.  By 2000, Dr. Meckelnburg restricted the Wife to 50% of full-time 
activity because the Wife’s physical conditions were being aggravated by 
prolonged activity.  At that time, Dr. Meckelnburg did not expressly restrict 
the Wife to only 50% of full-time activity as a nurse, but stated, “The patient 
 
3
could tolerate three to four hours of work but then would develop more back 
pain.”   
5) 
In 2003, Dr. Meckelnburg reported the same restrictions (50% 
of full-time) for the Wife because she continued to be in danger of spinal 
fractures.  He testified that “every spinal fracture is now documented to 
increase mortality seven percent.”  Dr. Meckelnburg issued an updated 
statement of the Wife’s condition in 2004.  At his deposition, he read from 
the January 21, 2004, letter: 
[The Wife] is incapacitated from carrying out her routine duties 
as a nurse at the present time because of her involvement with 
osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. 
*** 
[The Wife] has marked limitations from lifting, pushing, 
pulling and shoving.  These are necessary parts of her routine 
activities which she can no longer undertake.  
 
Dr. Meckelnburg also testified that during 2003, the Wife developed 
osteoarthritis in her hands and wrist and the limitations were related to 
handling patients as a nurse.  Although this particular letter does not indicate 
any work restrictions, a March 15, 2004, letter reiterated the Wife’s 
capability of only 50% full-time activity. 
 
6) 
Dr. Meckelnburg reported a change in the Wife’s condition on 
April 15, 2004, after she underwent a bone density study.  The letter stated, 
 
4
“[The Wife] has recently had a reversal in her bone mineral density so that 
there has been a greater loss of mineralization accentuating her osteoporosis.  
She also has demonstrated the arthritic involvement in her shoulders and hip 
areas on a bone scan with involvement of these joints symmetrically.”  Dr. 
Meckelnburg testified that the significance of the loss of mineralization was 
that the Wife was at an even greater risk of fractures.   
7) 
In a subsequent report dated April 22, 2004, Dr. Meckelnburg 
indicated that the Wife was “incapacitated by pain in her flank and abdomen 
which prevents her from carrying out her usual activities as a nurse.”  He 
reported that the Wife’s pain and incapacitation was likely to progress over 
time.  Dr. Meckelnburg testified that the reports indicating the Wife’s 
diagnoses and limitations were to go to her employers.  When asked if she 
could do clerical work, Dr. Meckelnburg responded:  
Oh, if she was assigned to clerical work, yes.  I think she could 
probably do this.  I don’t believe that that would be a problem, 
although at the present time her capabilities for sitting, if she’s 
going to sit for three or four hours at a time, probability is going 
to be somewhat limited because of her degree of stiffness that 
develops and the aching and soreness that develops after she’s 
been sitting for a period of time. . . .  Now, could you get up 
and move around and so forth and do some stretching? The 
answer is probably yes. 
*** 
She could work in . . . [t]he executive capacity where she’s not 
doing physical labor.  The type of nursing or the type of activity 
where she would be sitting at a desk, the secretarial type of 
 
5
thing, I think she could carry out probably on a fairly good 
basis, although, again, it might be limited because of this 
presence of this pain. . . . 
*** 
And so, you know, I think to have the person in her situation, I 
think, could work reasonably well probably for four hours.  
She’d probably have to get up and do some moving around 
during that period of time for sure.  But would she be able to 
get enough relief to continue on in comfort for another four 
hours without going someplace and lying down?  I doubt it. 
 
8) 
The Wife currently works at a pediatrician’s office at $17.00 
per hour, twenty hours per week.  She testified, however, that she has 
difficulty working that amount of hours.  She also testified that her current 
employer is unaware of Dr. Meckelnburg’s work restrictions because she 
fears she would lose her job if she informed her employer of her medical 
problems. 
9) 
Despite the testimony of the Wife and Dr. Meckelnburg, in its 
July 1, 2005, Opinion, the Family Court stated: 
While the Court gives weight to Wife’s health issues, it is also 
cognizant of the fact that Wife, despite being placed on work 
restrictions, has chosen to withhold this information from her 
current employer, albeit for “fear of losing her job.”  Wife has 
worked in a limited capacity throughout the parties’ marriage 
and, as such, it does not believe it appropriate to attribute Wife 
with earnings of between $50,000 and $60,000 per year as 
proposed by Husband….  The Court believes, however, that 
Wife is capable of increasing the number of hours that she 
works at her current employer.  Therefore, she is attributed with 
 
6
earnings of $33,150.00 based upon working 37.50 hours per 
week at her current hourly rate of $17.00.1 
 
10) 
The Family Court further explained its reasoning for finding the 
Wife able to work 37.5 hours per week in its Decision on Remand.   
Dr. Meckelnburg testified that Wife could perform “executive 
type of nursing where she is not doing physical labor.”  He also 
testified that if Wife were sitting for four hours, she would 
probably be in a lot of pain by the end of that time.  When 
questioned whether she could get relief to continue for another 
four hours, he answered, “I doubt it.”  However, Wife, by her 
own testimony, is not in a sedentary position where she is 
sitting for hours.  Therefore, as Dr. Meckelnburg noted, Wife is 
exerting less joules of pressure across her spine by working in 
an upright or standing position.   
* * * 
Because Wife is not performing the restricted duties prohibited 
by Dr. Meckelnburg and because her position does not require 
her to sit for four hours at a time, the Court found that she could 
increase her hours in her current employment.2   
 
11) 
The Family Court attributed the Wife with increased earnings 
as part of its assessment of the appropriate alimony award based on the 
statutory factors outlined in Title 13, section 1512(c) of the Delaware Code.3  
                                          
 
1 Saldanha v. Saldanha, Del. Fam. Ct., No. CN02-8607 at 13-14 (Jul. 1, 2005) (Ancillary 
Matters) (emphasis added). 
2 Saldanha v. Saldanha, Del. Fam. Ct., No. CN02-8607 at 4-5 (October 11, 2006) 
(Decision on Remand). 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1512(c) provides:   
The alimony order shall be in such an amount and for such time as the 
Court deems just, without regard to marital misconduct, after 
consideration of all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: 
(1) 
The financial resources of the party seeking alimony, including the 
marital or separate property apportioned to him or her, and his or 
 
7
However, when assessing factor (5), the Court agreed that the Wife “suffers 
with several debilitating illnesses” but only to the extent of the Wife’s ability 
to maintain employment in a hospital as a nurse.4  After consideration of the 
statutory factors, the Family Court awarded the Wife $2000 per month in 
alimony.5 
12) 
The Wife’s sole claim on appeal is that the Family Court 
abused its discretion in awarding her alimony based on her ability to work 
full-time when undisputed evidence showed that she is only able to work 
part-time.  We review the alimony award entered by the Family Court to 
determine if: “first, its findings of fact are supported by the record; second, 
                                                                                                                             
 
her ability to meet all or part of his or her reasonable needs 
independently; 
(2) 
The time necessary and expense required to acquire sufficient 
education or training to enable the party seeking alimony to find 
appropriate employment; 
(3)  
The standard of living established during the marriage; 
(4) 
The duration of the marriage; 
(5) 
The age, physical and emotional condition of both parties; 
(6) 
Any financial or other contribution made by either party to the 
education, training, vocational skills, career or earning capacity of 
the other party; 
(7) 
The ability of the other party to meet his or her needs while paying 
alimony; 
(8) 
Tax consequences; 
(9) 
Whether either party has foregone or postponed economic, 
education or other employment opportunities during the course of 
the marriage; and 
(10) 
Any other factor which the Court expressly finds is just and 
appropriate to consider. 
4 Saldanha v. Saldanha, No. CN02-8607 at 21 (Ancillary Matters). 
5 Id. at 24.  Wife was also awarded 62.5% of the marital estate and $480 per month child 
support. Id. at 26-27. 
 
8
its decision reflects due consideration of the statutory factors found in 
section 1512; and third, its explanations, deductions and inferences are the 
product of a logical and deductive reasoning process.”6   
13) 
When determining the amount and duration of the final alimony 
award, the Family Court addressed the statutory requirements in section 
1512.7  In applying the statutory factors, the Family Court determined that 
the Wife could work more than part-time, despite Dr. Meckelnburg’s 50% 
work restriction.  No expert testimony was presented to contradict Dr. 
Meckelnburg’s restriction to part-time work.  Nor did the Family Court 
reject the testimony of the Wife concerning her pain. 
 
14) 
The record does not support the Family Court’s conclusion that 
the Wife can work more than twenty hours per week.  In its Decision on 
Remand, the Family Court focused on Dr. Meckelnburg’s testimony 
regarding the Wife’s ability to sit for a prolonged period of time.  It 
                                          
 
6 Gray v. Gray, 503 A.2d 198, 200 (Del. 1986). 
7 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1512(e) provides: 
Any person awarded alimony has a continuing affirmative obligation to 
make good faith efforts to seek appropriate vocational training, if 
necessary, and employment unless the Court specifically finds, after a 
hearing, that it would be inequitable to require a person awarded alimony 
to do so (i) at any time, due to (A) a severe and incapacitating mental or 
physical illness, or disability or (B) his or her age, or (ii) immediately, 
after consideration of the needs of a minor child or children living with 
him or her. 
 
9
concluded that, because she is standing upright and not sitting for a 
prolonged period, she is capable of working full-time.   
15) 
Dr. Meckelnburg specifically addressed her ability to do more 
than four hours of clerical or executive work without physical labor.  He 
opined that a “person in her situation, I think, could work reasonably well 
probably for four hours.”  Dr. Meckelnburg, through his testimony, and 
more importantly, through his reports spanning from 1997 to 2004, has 
consistently opined that the Wife is unable to work in her current capacity as 
a nurse more than twenty hours per week.8  Because his testimony and the 
testimony of the Wife were not refuted, the record does not support the 
Family Court’s determination that the Wife is capable of working full-time.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment 
of the Family Court is reversed.  This matter is remanded for further 
proceedings in accordance with this order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
8 Dr. Meckelnburg specifically mentioned nursing duties in two of the notes.