Opinion ID: 2637586
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sarkesian Is Required To Pay Unreimbursed Medical Costs.

Text: In the initial divorce decree, Sarkesian was ordered to pay the entire deductible and all other costs not covered by the [children's health care] policy. This was affirmed by the later settlement agreement, which provided that [a]ll provisions of [the June 1, 1992 order] relating to child support issues shall remain in full force and effect. Judge Zervos, in the June 18, 2001 superior court opinion from which this appeal originates, examined the medical bills that Hixson provided relating to the children's orthodontic treatment and ordered Sarkesian to reimburse her for the total amount of the bills. Sarkesian claims that because he was paying child support in excess of the income cap, he should not have been required to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses since those costs should have been included in calculating the economic needs of the children for which the higher payments were justified. [33] However, shifting these expenses to Sarkesian was part of the settlement agreed to by Sarkesian. He can and does argue that the cost shifting for future unreimbursed medical expenses should be changed, but it appears clear that absent such a modification, costs such as contact lenses and braces are something Sarkesian agreed not to litigate when he signed the settlement agreement. Sarkesian is therefore liable to Hixson for these expenses.
In his June 18, 2001 order, Judge Zervos ordered that Sarkesian pay four-fifths of all future unreimbursed medical expenses, with the other fifth to be paid by Hixson. Sarkesian contends that this disparity is unjustified given Hixson's employment and her recent marriage. Sarkesian argues that at the very least Civil Rule 90.3(d)(2) requires that the first $5,000 of unreimbursed medical expenses be split evenly. [34] The superior court found that Sarkesian's yearly income is $85,015.41. By Sarkesian's own admission, Hixson can be expected to earn only about $22,000 per year. Sarkesian thus earns almost four times as much as Hixson and could reasonably be expected to contribute four-fifths of the unreimbursed medical costs, as the court found. Sarkesian's interpretation of Civil Rule 90.3(d)(2) is also incorrect. The first sentence states that health care costs should be shared equally unless the court finds good cause to allocate them otherwise. In the present case, the superior court did find reason to allocate these costs disproportionately, namely the parties' relative incomes. This was not an abuse of discretion. The last sentence of Civil Rule 90.3(d)(2) does not require, as Sarkesian asserts, that only those unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $5,000 be allocated according to the financial circumstances of the parents. Rather, it requires that the superior court allocate those expenses exceeding $5,000 according to ability to pay regardless of how the court allocated the first $5,000 of expenses. In other words, this sentence does not negate the ability of the superior court to deviate from an equal distribution of unreimbursed medical costs if it finds good cause to do so.