Opinion ID: 1143506
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Marla's health.

Text: Kenneth asserts that Marla did not produce sufficient, admissible evidence of her health problems to warrant the trial court's findings. We can overturn a trial court's finding of fact only when it is clearly erroneous. Alaska R.Civ.P. 52(a). Findings are clearly erroneous if, based on the record as a whole, this court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Burcell, 713 P.2d at 804. Marla presented documentary evidence including letters and notations by various doctors regarding her possible multiple sclerosis. [5] While not conclusive, the exhibits corroborate Marla's testimony that she suffered certain symptoms and refer to test results supporting a diagnosis of MS. Marla also presented testimony of a medical doctor about symptoms common to and the prognosis of MS patients. This doctor also testified that MS is very difficult to diagnose and that a patient must be repeatedly tested over time to enable a conclusive diagnosis. Although he had not examined Marla, the symptoms he discussed as supporting a diagnosis of MS corresponded with Marla's description of her symptoms. Marla also testified that she has arthritis in both hands and that this made her work very difficult and that it made it impossible to work as a dental assistant any longer. She also stated that her hands were gnarled by the disease  a claim the trial court could presumably verify by its own observation. She produced an x-ray report stating that an examination revealed osteoarthritic changes in the joints of her fingers. Finally, Kenneth himself testified that she complained of pain in her hands throughout the time of their marriage. Kenneth produced no contrary evidence regarding either the MS or the arthritis. The trial court found that Marla had shown, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, a strong likelihood that she suffers from multiple sclerosis and arthritis, and that these problems placed the prospect of her continued employment in doubt. Based on a review of the record as a whole, we cannot say that this finding was clearly erroneous. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Marla a greater share of the marital property based on its consideration of the Merrill factors, given her health problems and their probable effect on her earning capacity.