Opinion ID: 1158487
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Allowable Absence for Medical Treatment

Text: The Department considered the Brodigans' extended absences to have been for reasons not allowed for purposes of PFD eligibility. It noted that a seasonal change of residency for medical purposes does not qualify as an absence allowable for medical treatment under 15 AAC 23.175(c)(6). [4] Thus, it held that the Brodigans were ineligible to apply for the 1990 PFD. [5] The Brodigans argue that they should have received their 1990 PFDs because John was absent for medical treatment, a permissible reason under AS 43.23.095(8)(D) and 15 AAC 23.175(c)(6). [6] They claim that as a result of John's vascular problems, his doctor in Alaska recommended that he spend the colder months in a warmer climate outside Alaska and thus their travel constitutes medical treatment. In affirming the Department's decision, the superior court stated that medical treatment, as used in AS 43.23.095(8)(D), is not defined to include merely an absence from the state on the advice of one's doctor. Treatment means just that. It implies some specific therapeutic application by medical personnel.... We find the court's interpretation reasonable. Allowing an absence for medical treatment recognizes that prolonged absence from Alaska can be appropriate when some specific therapeutic application by medical personnel is necessary. Leaving Alaska for that purpose does not reflect adversely upon one's intent to remain permanently in Alaska upon completion of treatment. We conclude that it was reasonable for the Department to decide that the Brodigans did not qualify for an allowable absence for medical treatment, although their absence may have been medically advised. The Department consequently did not abuse its discretion. [7]