Opinion ID: 2584589
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Richard's health concerns

Text: Richard argues that the trial court did not correctly apply the statutory factors in AS 25.24.160 [33] because it did not account for his health or the availability and cost of health insurance for him. The trial court found that Richard injured his knee, fell from a horse and injured his back, had twice been kicked in the head by horses, and had major dental problems associated with being kicked by the horses. Richard did not present medical records at trial. Richard argues that a fifty-year-old male with his health problems cannot obtain affordable health insurance and that the court should be directed to account for his conditions and the cost of health insurance. The trial court assumed in its oral decision on the record that Richard could obtain his own health benefits from the state at retirement: The court would note a spouse is entitled to health benefits through the state retirement system [if] there is a [QDRO]. Under AS 39.35.535(d), a former spouse who is awarded a portion of a state employee's Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) benefit under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) is entitled to purchase state major medical coverage. Richard was awarded a coverture portion of Sheila's PERS account in the decision on the record, and hence would be entitled under section.535(d) to obtain health insurance. Even if this were not the case, we see no abuse of discretion here. In Martin v. Martin, [34] we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to award PERS benefits  which would have allowed the husband to obtain coverage under AS 39.35.535(d)  because the husband failed to show that he had no other means of obtaining his own health insurance. [35] We noted that we would only find an abuse of discretion in this situation if the superior court's decision produced a clearly unjust result. [36] Sheila argues that the result here is not unjust because (1) Richard presented inadequate evidence that he could not work, and (2) Richard had never sought disability benefits through Social Security that would be an alternate source of health insurance. The superior court also found that the size of the estate was such that Richard would be able to obtain health insurance with his portion of the estate. Even if he were unable to obtain state coverage, we would not find this to rise to the level of injustice that would warrant a finding of abuse of discretion.