Where a divorced woman, who remained on her former husband’s health insurance per their separation agreement, obtained a job but declined the option of obtaining health insurance through her employer, a judge should not have ordered her to obtain her own insurance given the lack of evidence that one of the many plans available to her was “comparable” to the plan provided under the husband’s insurance.
Accordingly, the judgment is vacated.
“ … [W]e find merit in the wife’s appeal. The judge did not actually find that the health insurance coverage available through the wife’s employment provided ‘comparable’ coverage and benefits to those provided through the husband’s plan. Nor was there any evidence before the judge on which she could have made such a finding. Although it may well be true that one of the many plans available to the wife through her employment is ‘comparable’ to the plan provided under the husband’s insurance, the evidence to substantiate that claim is absent. Because the husband’s efforts to enforce the judgment depend on a showing of comparability, the judge’s order cannot stand. We therefore vacate the judgment on the counterclaim dated June 4, 2014, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order.”
No comments:
Post a Comment