may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota Regarding the Parties:
Jennifer A. Mills, petitioner,
David S. Anderson,
Filed February 16, 1999
Reversed and Remanded
Otter Tail County
File No. FX981044
Jennifer Mills, 620 Seventh Street Northeast, Perham, MN 56573 (pro se respondent)
Corenia Kollasch Walz, Pemberton, Sorlie, Sefkow, Rufer & Kershner, P.L.L.P., 110 North Mill Street, P.O. Box 866, Fergus Falls, MN 56538-0866 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Anderson, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Shumaker, Judge.
Appellant David S. Anderson contends the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in calculating appellant's income for purposes of determining his child support obligation. Appellant also argues the ALJ erred in failing to consider both his and respondent's ability to pay outstanding unreimbursed medical expenses and pregnancy and birthing costs. We reverse and remand.
Appellant contends the ALJ erred in determining his income. We agree. At the hearing appellant supplied pay stubs for the nine months preceding the hearing. Instead of using the pay stubs to determine appellant's gross income, the ALJ used figures from appellant's application for a car loan. Appellant, by sworn affidavit stated the loan application contained a higher income figure because the business manager at his workplace who fills out the credit applications told him he could include future estimated wages on his loan application. The income amount on the loan application is between $250 and $350 per month higher than the income indicated by appellant's pay stubs.
The information in the pay stubs is specific and verifiable while the loan application amount is an estimate. There is no evidence that appellant either supplemented his income with income from a different source or was purposely underemployed. On this record we conclude that absent a finding that appellant had more income than indicated by the pay records, the ALJ erred in determining appellant's income based on a loan application rather than the pay stubs.
Appellant also contends the ALJ erred in not deducting actual medical expenses from appellant's gross income. To determine net income, one may subtract from gross income the cost of individual or group health coverage or an amount for actual medical expenses. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b). In appellant's affidavit detailing expenses, he included $81.21 per month as "Individual Health/Hospitalization Coverage or Actual Medical Expenses." In the ALJ's findings and order, the expense is not mentioned. We conclude the ALJ erred by not addressing this expense in determining appellant's net income.
Because we conclude the ALJ erred in determining appellant's income, we reverse and remand for a recalculation of appellant's income.
The ALJ concluded that after expenses appellant had the ability to contribute to unreimbursed medical and dental expenses, pregnancy and birthing costs, and unpaid child support. Because we are remanding for a recalculation of appellant's income, that conclusion may no longer be correct. Further, the ALJ did not adequately examine respondent's ability to contribute to payment of the expenses. Therefore, we also remand for a determination as to appellant's and respondent's abilities to pay the past expenses.
Reversed and remanded.