Opinion ID: 1158487
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 15 AAC 23.175(c)(6)

Text: The Brodigans argue that even if this court agrees with the Department's interpretation of medical treatment, 15 AAC 23.175(c)(6) is invalid because it exceeds the Department's statutory authority. They assert that AS 43.23.095(8) allows the Department to establish additional allowable absences. They claim, however, that 15 AAC 23.175(c) impermissibly limits the statutory allowable absences by excluding certain types of medical treatment (those involving seasonal travel) from the statutory definition of allowable medical absences. In deciding whether 15 AAC 23.42.175(c)(6), which denies PFD eligibility to applicants who have a seasonal change of residence, falls within the commissioner's delegated authority to regulate PFD eligibility [8] we consider whether the regulation is consistent with the statutory purpose and is reasonable and not arbitrary. [9] State, Dep't of Revenue v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621, 624 (Alaska 1993) (quoting Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P.2d 906, 911 (Alaska 1971)). Alaska Statute 43.23.095(8) allows residents who temporarily leave the state for limited purposes to retain their PFD eligibility. Subsection (D) allows absences for medical treatment. Because the Department must administer the PFD program and apply the statutory standard, the commissioner needed to decide the meaning of medical treatment. [10] Thus, 15 AAC 23.175(c)(6) explains that an absence may be allowed for applicants receiving medical treatment if the absence does not include a seasonal or permanent change of residence. One objective of [AS 43.23.015(a), which grants the commissioner authority to adopt regulations] is to require the commissioner to make substantive regulations resolving questions as to who is and who is not a permanent resident. Cosio, 858 P.2d at 625. We stated in Cosio that [t]he objective of AS 42.23.095(8) is to limit payment of dividends to permanent residents. Id. Those who leave Alaska from the fall through the spring may reasonably be seen to fall outside this category of permanent residents of Alaska. By excluding medical absences involving a seasonal or permanent change of residence, the regulation assures that eligibility is limited to those residents who are temporarily outside actively attempting to treat their medical conditions. The regulation is consistent with the language and purposes of the statute. The regulation also eases the administrative burden of attempting to determine what treatment level is sufficient to merit eligibility for a PFD. Under the Brodigans' interpretation of the statute, any person whose physician advises that another climate would be beneficial could qualify for a PFD simply by visiting Alaska every year and establishing paper connections to Alaska, via licenses, registrations, and the like. To protect against such claims, the Department must be able to reasonably define statutory terms to insure that the permanent fund is protected for the legitimate claims of permanent residents. See State, Dep't of Revenue v. Bradley, 896 P.2d 237, 240 (1995) (The purpose of the regulation [conditioning student status upon full-time attendance] is to avoid unwarranted dividend payments without unduly burdening the agency.). Although the regulation is more restrictive than the statute because it contains the seasonal change language, it is not inconsistent with the statute. See Bradley, at 240 (upholding a regulation which required an absent resident to be enrolled as a full-time student although the relevant statute used broader language of secondary or postsecondary education to define state resident); Cosio, 858 P.2d at 624-25 (upholding a regulation which denied PFD eligibility to illegal aliens although the relevant statutes did not mention aliens at all). Because the regulation is consistent with the statutory purpose and is reasonable, we hold that the Department did not exceed its authority in adopting 15 AAC 23.175(c)(6).