Opinion
J-S70013-17 No. 781 MDA 2017
12-14-2017
SHEILA WEAVER Appellant v. THOMAS BREON, II Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered March 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Civil Division at No(s): 13-0267 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Sheila Weaver ("Wife"), appeals from the order entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, which required Thomas Breon, II ("Husband") to pay Wife a total of $148.31 for unreimbursed medical expenses, in this action for spousal support/alimony pendente lite. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The parties married on July 15, 1985, and separated on June 25, 2013. On July 10, 2013, Wife filed a complaint for spousal support/alimony pendente lite. The court held a support conference on August 21, 2013. By order dated August 21, 2013, and entered August 27, 2013, the court ordered Husband to pay Wife a total of $1,400.00 per month in support. The order contained the following provision regarding unreimbursed medical expenses:
The monthly support obligation includes cash medical support in the amount of $250 annually for unreimbursed
medical expenses incurred for each child and/or spouse as ordered herein. Unreimbursed medical expenses of the obligee or children that exceed $250 annually shall be allocated between the parties. The party seeking allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses must provide documentation of expenses to the other party no later than March 31st of the year following the calendar year in which the final medical bill to be allocated was received. The unreimbursed medical expenses are to be paid as follows: 76.00% by [Husband] and 24.00% by [Wife].(Support Order, filed August 27, 2013, at 3; R.R. at 007). The effective date of the order is July 10, 2013. ( See id. at 1; R.R. at 005).
On June 19, 2014, Wife filed a petition for contempt in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, alleging Husband had failed to comply with the August 2013 support order. Specifically, Wife claimed she had sent Husband a letter on March 10, 2014, requesting payment for unreimbursed medical expenses Wife incurred in 2013 and 2014, and submitted documentation of those expenses. Wife sought payment of $18,201.04, the majority of which pertained to Wife's dental/orthodontic treatment. Wife claimed Husband refused to pay. Husband filed a motion to quash the petition on June 26, 2014. Following a hearing on August 8, 2014, the court granted Husband's motion to quash, directing Wife to file her petition in the Domestic Relations Section ("DRS").
The August 8, 2014 hearing transcript is not in the certified record.
On August 25, 2014, Wife filed a "Petition for Enforcement of Support Order and for Civil Contempt" in the DRS, claiming Husband failed to comply with the August 2013 support order. Conference Officer Jeffrey Martin responded to Wife's petition by letter dated September 3, 2014, explaining Wife's petition would be forwarded to Enforcement Officer Timothy Weight to determine what, if any, further enforcement action would take place. The letter directed Wife to contact Mr. Weight for a status update regarding enforcement of Wife's claims. Mr. Martin's letter also included a copy of the DRS' policy on "Collection of Unreimbursed Medical Expenses." The policy states, in relevant part:
Meanwhile, Wife filed a petition to modify, seeking an increase in support. On September 10, 2014, the DRS entered a new support order, effective June 24, 2014, which reduced Husband's allocation for payment of unreimbursed medical expenses from 76% to 56%. Wife initially objected to the new support order, but she later withdrew those objections.
It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff to utilize any and all forms of health insurance coverage or medical assistance to meet expenses before a bill is forwarded to the Defendant for payment. The bill submitted for payment of unreimbursed medical expenses should be forwarded to the other party within 30 days of being finalized with the medical provider or insurance company. In other words, when a client obtains the "bottom line" on what is owed in out-of-pocket expenses, (s)he has 30 days to submit that expense to the other party for payment. In return, the Defendant should remit payment directly to the Plaintiff within 30 days. Bills can be submitted to the Defendant via certified mail. All unreimbursed medical bills must be provided to the other party not later than March 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the final bill was received by the party seeking allocation. Any unreimbursed medical expense that is not resolved between the parties may be submitted to DRS only between January 1st and May 31st for the previous calendar year. Domestic
Relations is not responsible for sorting through bills and receipts, nor for tallying expenses; therefore, the official DRS medical bill submission form must accompany any documentation submitted for collection. A certified receipt confirming the expense was received in a timely manner by the Defendant can be submitted to the DRS with a copy of the unpaid bill(s). Proof of receipt must be submitted to the DRS in order for enforcement services to be provided. If a bill is not paid in the appropriate time period, the party who failed to make payment may be cited for Contempt of Court or the total amount owed may be added to the case balance with the arrears payment and wage attachment increased to pay on this expense. It is important to note that a possible consequence of a contempt citation is incarceration. Any expense submitted to the DRS AFTER May 31st for the previous calendar year, per Centre County Court of Common Pleas policy, will not be enforced by the DRS.(Collection of Unreimbursed Medical Expenses Policy at 1; R.R. at 473) (emphasis in original). Husband subsequently objected to Wife's petition.
Enforcement Officer Mr. Weight investigated Wife's petition but was unable to resolve whether she was entitled to payment for the alleged unreimbursed medical expenses based on the documentation provided. Consequently, on October 23, 2014, the DRS filed a "contempt" petition against Husband, requesting an evidentiary hearing before the court. The court scheduled a hearing for December 3, 2014, but ultimately relisted the matter for February 3, 2015.
According to Mr. Weight, the petition was not a true "contempt" petition but was the only available mechanism for the DRS to bring the parties' dispute before the court.
The record suggests the court held a brief hearing on or around December 3, 2014, but that hearing transcript is not in the certified record. According to Wife, the parties appeared before the court on that date, at which time a representative from the DRS advised the court the DRS would not enforce Wife's petition with respect to her 2013 unreimbursed medical expenses, pursuant to the DRS' policy that expenses submitted to the DRS after May 31st will not be enforced, and because Mr. Weight was unavailable to testify.
The court held a hearing on February 3, 2015, at which Wife and Mr. Weight testified. Wife testified about the various unreimbursed medical expenses she incurred in 2013 and 2014, and produced documents of the medical bills she had received. Mr. Weight testified he requested a hearing in this matter because he could not resolve whether Wife was entitled to payment for her alleged unreimbursed medical expenses. Mr. Weight explained that some of Wife's claims pre-dated the effective date of the support order, other claims did not include original bills or receipts, and he could not discern whether Wife met the $250.00 threshold for 2013 or 2014.
Wife claimed in earlier proceedings that Husband was responsible for $18,201.04 in unreimbursed medical expenses, but Wife sought only $14,735.33 at the February 3, 2015 hearing.
Following the hearing, the court requested submission of post-hearing briefs. Wife filed her post-hearing brief on February 19, 2015, and Husband filed his post-hearing brief on March 6, 2015. On March 30, 2015, the court entered an order requiring Husband to pay Wife a total of $148.31 for unreimbursed medical expenses Wife incurred in 2013. The court decided Wife did not meet the eligibility threshold for the expenses she submitted for 2014.
Wife filed a notice of appeal on April 29, 2015, at docket No. 754 MDA 2015. On July 16, 2015, this Court issued a per curiam rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed where no transcripts were prepared for the appeal because Wife did not properly serve the Court Reporter with the notice of appeal and request for transcript, per Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a), (d) (stating appellant shall request any required transcript and make necessary payment; appellate court may dismiss appeal if appellant fails to take action for preparation of transcript). That same date, this Court issued a separate rule to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed as interlocutory, due to the pendency of the parties' divorce proceedings. See generally Thomas v. Thomas , 760 A.2d 397 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding spousal support order entered during pendency of companion divorce action is interlocutory and not appealable until final disposition of divorce and all economic claims connected to divorce action). Wife did not respond to either rule to show cause. On September 22, 2015, this Court dismissed Wife's appeal by per curiam order, due to the pendency of the parties' divorce proceedings and Wife's failure to serve the Court Reporter with the notice of appeal and request for transcripts.
By order dated April 6, 2017 (with notice per Pa.R.C.P. 236 provided to Wife's counsel on April 10, 2017), the court entered a divorce decree, which incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement. Wife timely filed a notice of appeal at the current docket No. 781 MDA 2017, on May 10, 2017. On May 25, 2017, the court ordered Wife to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Wife timely complied on June 5, 2017.
Following Wife's May 10, 2017 notice of appeal, this Court issued a per curiam rule to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed as interlocutory where it was unclear if the parties' divorce action was still pending. Wife responded to the rule, producing copies of the parties' divorce decree and marital settlement agreement. This Court subsequently discharged the rule to show cause and deferred the issue to the merits panel. As the parties' divorce proceedings are now complete, there are no jurisdictional impediments to our review. See Thomas , supra.
Wife raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH ITS DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING A POLICY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL EXPENSES THAT VIOLATES THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF PA.R.CIV.P. [1910.16-6] ABDICATING ITS OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE THE REIMBURSEMENT OF ARREARAGES FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES DUE FROM SPOUSAL SUPPORT OBLIGORS?(Wife's Brief at 5).
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING [WIFE] REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES THAT IT ACKNOWLEDGED WERE MEDICALLY NECESSARY AND WHICH THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE TRIAL COURT CONFIRMED [WIFE] WAS NOT REIMBURSED?
Our standard and scope of review in this case are as follows:
[A]n appellate court's standard of review in cases involving support matters is whether the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion exists when the judgment of the trial court is manifestly unreasonable or is the result of prejudice, bias or ill-will. While it is not an appellate court's duty to create the record or assess credibility, we must nevertheless examine the existing record to ascertain whether sufficient facts are present to support the trial court's order. If sufficient evidence exists in the record to substantiate the trial court's action, and the trial court has properly applied accurate case law to the relevant facts, then we must affirm.Hibbitts v. Hibbitts , 749 A.2d 975, 976-77 (Pa.Super. 2000) (internal citations omitted).
In her first issue, Wife argues the DRS' policy establishing May 31st as the deadline for bills to be submitted for enforcement purposes is inconsistent with Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6. Wife asserts the Rule plainly states that where the obligor has been provided notice of unreimbursed medical expenses before March 31st, then for purposes of subsequent enforcement, unreimbursed medical bills do not have to be submitted to the DRS prior to that date. Wife insists she timely provided notice of her unreimbursed medical expenses to Husband by letter dated March 10, 2014. When Husband failed to comply with her request for payment, Wife claims she filed her initial petition for contempt on June 19, 2014. Wife highlights that the DRS ultimately investigated her claim and filed its own contempt petition against Husband in October 2014. Wife contends she did not receive notice that the DRS was refusing to enforce her petition until the December 3, 2014 hearing, at which time a representative from the DRS took the position that Wife's medical expenses for 2013 were unenforceable pursuant to the DRS' policy. Wife proclaims that the DRS' policy unfairly limited Wife's available options for seeking payment of her unreimbursed medical expenses. Wife concludes the DRS' policy on the collection of unreimbursed medical expenses is inconsistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and this Court must reverse the order on appeal and remand to the DRS to enforce Wife's petition in a manner consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure. We disagree.
Preliminarily, "it is the responsibility of the [a]ppellant to supply this Court with a complete record for purposes of review." Smith v. Smith , 637 A.2d 622, 623 (Pa.Super. 1993), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 680, 652 A.2d 1325 (1994) (emphasis in original). "[A] failure by an [a]ppellant to insure that the original record certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper review constitutes a waiver of the issue(s) sought to be examined." Id. at 623-24. See also Kessler v. Broder , 851 A.2d 944 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 676, 868 A.2d 1201 (2005) (reiterating appellant's responsibility to produce complete record for appeal).
Instantly, Wife initially sought reimbursement for medical expenses by filing a petition for contempt on June 19, 2014, in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, alleging Husband had failed to comply with the August 2013 support order. Husband filed a motion to quash the petition on June 26, 2014. Following a hearing on August 8, 2014, the court granted Husband's motion, directing Wife to file her petition in the DRS. Notably, the August 8, 2014 hearing transcript is not in the certified record.
On August 25, 2014, Wife filed a "Petition for Enforcement of Support Order and for Civil Contempt" in the DRS. Conference Officer Jeffrey Martin responded to Wife's petition by letter, explaining Wife's petition would be forwarded to Enforcement Officer Timothy Weight to determine what, if any, further enforcement action would take place. The letter directed Wife to contact Mr. Weight for a status update regarding enforcement of Wife's petition. Mr. Martin's letter also included a copy of the DRS' policy on "Collection of Unreimbursed Medical Expenses."
Enforcement Officer Mr. Weight investigated Wife's claim but was unable to resolve whether she was entitled to payment for the alleged unreimbursed medical expenses based on the documentation provided. Consequently, on October 23, 2014, the DRS filed a "contempt" petition against Husband, requesting an evidentiary hearing before the court. According to Wife, the parties appeared before the court on December 3, 2014, at which time a representative from the DRS advised the court the DRS would not enforce Wife's petition regarding her alleged 2013 unreimbursed medical expenses pursuant to its policy that expenses submitted after May 31st will not be enforced, and because Mr. Weight was unavailable to testify. Significantly, the December 3, 2014 hearing transcript is also missing from the certified record.
In a footnote in the "Statement of the Case" section of her appellate brief, Wife states she ordered all relevant transcripts in this case with her notice of appeal, and if any missing transcripts are necessary to decide Wife's issues on appeal, this Court should remand for transcription of the proceedings without prejudice to Wife. ( See Wife's Brief at 11-12 n.1). Nevertheless, Wife knew when she filed her first and premature appeal, back in April 2015, that no transcripts were included in the certified record; and this Court dismissed Wife's appeal at docket No. 754 MDA 2015, in part, on that basis. Wife filed the current notice of appeal at docket No. 781 MDA 2017, on May 10, 2017, which included a request for transcripts dated August 8, 2014, December 4, 2014, and February 3, 2015. The certified record before us, however, includes only the February 3, 2015 hearing transcript.
On appeal, Wife contends the hearing took place on December 3, 2014.
Initially, the record does not indicate whether Wife paid for the August or December 2014 hearing transcripts. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a). Significantly, Wife has had over two years to procure the missing transcripts, which she knew were absent from the certified record since this Court's July 16, 2015 rule to show cause order issued in her earlier 2015 appeal. Wife obviously obtained the February 3, 2015 hearing transcript between the time of her premature appeal and the current appeal, which shows she knew how to get the necessary transcripts, and had plenty of time to ensure they were in the record. Wife, however, simply failed to do so with respect to the 2014 hearing transcripts.
Under these circumstances, we cannot fully analyze Wife's claim concerning what inconsistencies, if any, exist between the DRS' policy on the collection of unreimbursed medical expenses and the relevant Rule of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Wife's first issue is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) (stating if appellant fails to take action required by these rules and Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration for preparation of transcript, appellate court may take such action as it deems appropriate); Kessler , supra ; Smith , supra.
Additionally, other than reciting the Rule and the DRS' policy, Wife provides no legal authority to support her position that the policy at issue conflicts with Rule 1910.16-6. Wife also fails to explain how the policy is inconsistent with Rule 1910.16-6. Wife's first issue is arguably waived for these reasons as well. See generally Jones v. Jones , 8778 A.2d 86 (Pa.Super. 2005) (explaining failure to argue and cite to supporting relevant authority constitutes waiver of issue on appeal; arguments that are not developed appropriately are waived); Bunt v. Pension Mortg. Associates , Inc., 666 A.2d 1091 (Pa.Super. 1995) (stating it is appellant's responsibility to establish entitlement to relief by showing that trial court's ruling is erroneous; where appellant presents position without elaboration or citation to case law, this Court can decline to address appellant's bare argument).
Moreover, to the extent we can resolve Wife's first issue on the appeal based on the limited record before us, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1910.16-6 provides, in pertinent part:
Rule 1910.16-6. Support Guidelines. Adjustments to the Basic Support Obligation. Allocation of Additional Expenses
The trier of fact may allocate between the parties the additional expenses identified in subdivisions (a)—(e). If under the facts of the case an order for basic support is not appropriate, the trier of fact may allocate between the parties the additional expenses.
* * *
(c) Unreimbursed Medical Expenses. Unreimbursed medical expenses of the obligee or the children shall be allocated between the parties in proportion to their respective net incomes. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, there shall be no apportionment of unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by a party who is not owed a statutory duty of support by the other party. The court may direct that obligor's share be added to his or her basic support obligation, or paid directly to the obligee or to the health care provider.
(1) For purposes of this subdivision, medical expenses are annual unreimbursed medical expenses in excess of $250 per person. Medical expenses include insurance co-payments and deductibles and all expenses incurred for reasonably necessary medical services and supplies, including but not limited to surgical, dental and optical services, and orthodontia. Medical expenses do not include cosmetic, chiropractic, psychiatric, psychological or other services unless specifically directed in the order of court.
Note: While cosmetic, chiropractic, psychiatric, psychological or other expenses are not required to be apportioned between the parties, the court may apportion such expenses that it determines to be reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
(2) An annual limitation may be imposed when the burden on the obligor would otherwise be excessive.Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-6(c)(1-3) (emphasis added).
(3) Annual expenses pursuant to this subdivision (c), shall be calculated on a calendar year basis. In the year in which the initial support order is entered, or in any period in which support is being paid that is less than a full year, the $250 threshold shall be pro-rated. Documentation of unreimbursed medical expenses that either party seeks to have allocated between the parties shall be provided to the other party not later than March 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the final bill was received by the party seeking allocation. For purposes of subsequent enforcement, unreimbursed medical bills need not be submitted to the domestic relations section prior to March 31. Allocation of unreimbursed medical expenses for which documentation is not timely provided to the other party shall be within the discretion of the court.
* * *
Almost identical to the first sentence of the highlighted language of the Rule, the DRS' policy states: "All unreimbursed medical bills must be provided to the other party not later than March 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the final bill was received by the party seeking allocation." (Collection of Unreimbursed Medical Expenses Policy at 1; R.R. at 473). The policy continues: "Any unreimbursed medical expense that is not resolved between the parties may be submitted to DRS only between January 1st and May 31st for the previous calendar year. ... Any expense submitted to the DRS AFTER May 31st for the previous calendar year...will not be enforced by the DRS." ( Id.) (emphasis in original).
We see no inconsistency between the DRS' policy and Rule 1910.16-6(c). To the contrary, Rule 1910.16-6 and the policy both make clear the party seeking payment for unreimbursed medical expenses must submit her expenses to the obligor by March 31st of the year following the calendar year in which the final bill was received. Under the DRS policy, any dispute regarding payment of unreimbursed medical expenses must be submitted to the DRS between January 1st and May 31st. The provision that Wife relies on simply provides that, for purposes of enforcement, Wife was not required to submit her petition for enforcement to the DRS prior to March 31st. The Rule, however, does not afford Wife an unlimited deadline to submit her petition to the DRS. Rather, the DRS policy sets the deadline on claims submitted to the DRS at May 31st. Read together, the Rule and the policy are consistent as far as deadlines go.
Wife sent Husband a letter detailing her alleged unreimbursed medical expenses on March 10, 2014, but Wife did not file her initial contempt petition until June 19, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas, or file her claim with the DRS until August 25, 2014. If a representative from the DRS informed the court at the December 3, 2014 hearing that it could not enforce Wife's claim for unreimbursed medical expenses incurred in 2013 (which we cannot verify due to the missing transcript), then that statement is consistent with both the DRS policy as well as Rule 1910.16-6. In any event, notwithstanding Wife's belated filing in the DRS, the court still considered all of Wife's alleged unreimbursed medical expenses incurred in 2013, and awarded her payment for some of those expenses. Therefore, even if Wife had preserved her first issue for our review, it would merit no relief.
In her second issue on appeal, Wife argues she was required to prove only that she incurred unreimbursed medical expenses in excess of $250.00 to establish Husband's duty to pay the proportionate share of the expenses incurred. Wife asserts she presented documentary evidence at the February 3, 2015 hearing, of all unreimbursed expenses she incurred in 2013 and 2014. Wife claims the court improperly placed the burden on Wife to prove the insurance company did not reimburse her for the amounts she alleged she paid out of pocket. Wife complains the court's denial of her claim for payment of substantial dental treatments was "egregious," where the court initially decided Wife's dental expenses were medically necessary but then denied her claim because Wife provided no follow-up information regarding whether the dental and/or medical insurance companies reimbursed her for those expenses. Wife contends the court completely ignored her testimony/evidence that she took out a line of credit to pay for the substantial dental expenses. Wife insists she also testified and produced an explanation of benefits ("EOB") form, showing the insurance company paid only $966.00 of her $18,500.00 dental expenses incurred in 2013 and 2014. Wife concludes the court abused its discretion by awarding Wife only $148.31 for unreimbursed medical expenses, and this Court must reverse. We disagree.
The EOB form Wife submitted pertains only to Wife's dental work in 2013.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jonathan D. Grine, we conclude Wife's second issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Opinion in Support of Order, filed March 30, 2015, at 4-11) (analyzing Wife's claims for unreimbursed medical expenses submitted for 2013 and 2014, under August 2013 support order; rejecting claims Wife incurred before effective date of support order, claims for which Wife offered no testimony to demonstrate they were reasonably necessary treatment or supplies, and claims for which Wife failed to provide sufficient follow-up information regarding how much, if any, insurance covered or reimbursed her for alleged expenses; court decided Wife submitted $315.00 in eligible unreimbursed medical expenses for 2013 and $46.05 in 2014; Wife is responsible for first $119.86 in unreimbursed medical expenses for each year (her pro-rated portion of $250.00 for each year), so Wife is entitled to 76% of remaining $195.14 for 2013 claims, or $148.31 from Husband for total unreimbursed medical expenses). Accordingly, we affirm Wife's second issue based on the trial court's opinion.
Wife submitted a claim for $6,500.00 she incurred for dental work at Sabatini Dental on June 25, 2013. Wife insists she is entitled to reimbursement on this claim because she obtained a line of credit to pay for this expense, and payment on the line of credit was due on December 9, 2013, after the support order was in effect. Wife also insists she produced an EOB form demonstrating her insurance company paid only $966.00 of the expense. Regarding Wife's latter claim, the billing statement from Sabatini Dental indicates that office billed Wife's medical and dental insurance companies. The EOB form Wife provided indicates only what her medical insurance covered. Wife failed to submit sufficient evidence regarding how much, if any, her dental insurance covered. In any event, we agree with the trial court that Wife was not entitled to reimbursement for this expense where her dental work was done in June 2013, before the effective date of the support order. See Hibbitts , supra.
We deny Wife's claim for costs of this appeal. --------
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/14/2017
Image materials not available for display.