ROBERT C. BILLINGS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v
.
Rockingham County
No. 97 CVD 227
PAMELA EVANS BILLINGS,
Defendant.
No brief filed for plaintiff appellee.
The Berger Law Firm, by Philip E. Berger, Jr., for defendant
appellant.
WYNN, Judge.
Defendant Pamela Evans Billings appeals from an order of the
trial court concluding the orthodontic treatment received by her
child was not medically necessary, and that the child's father,
Plaintiff Robert Billings, Jr., was therefore not obligated under
the parties' child support order to reimburse Defendant for the
orthodontic expenses. We conclude Defendant presented substantial
evidence that the orthodontic treatment was medically necessary;
accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court.
This matter arose following a motion by Defendant requestingreimbursement of “uninsured medical and orthodontic/dental expenses
for the parties' children.” She alleged the child support order
required Plaintiff to pay one-half of all “uninsured medical
expenses.” The matter came for hearing on 18 November 2002, at
which time the parties presented evidence tending to show the
following:
Defendant testified she consulted an orthodontist regarding
her twelve-year-old daughter Ashley because Ashley's “eyeteeth were
up here pushing her top lip up and her teeth were too crowded.
They were bowed out, and she was biting her jaw.” Defendant
introduced into evidence a letter from the orthodontist describing
Ashley's condition as “maxillary protrusion, maxillary and
mandibular crowding, deep bite, with the extraction of 4 teeth.”
The letter averred that “Ashley's treatment is necessary for the
straightening of her teeth and also her overall dental health for
years to come.” When Defendant consulted with Plaintiff concerning
the cost of Ashley's treatment, Plaintiff informed her that his
insurance did not include coverage for braces, and that he did not
have the funds to contribute to payment for her treatment.
Ashley testified that, before she began wearing braces, she
“bit [her] jaw a lot,” which caused constant “sores in the sides of
[her] mouth.” According to Ashley, she did not want braces, but
her “doctor told [her] that [she] needed to get them” and that
“they were necessary because . . . [her] jaws kept getting sore and
it was . . . constantly pushing these teeth up higher.” When asked
whether her condition caused any disfigurement to her face, Ashleyresponded that her “lips were being pushed up” due to the placement
of her eyeteeth.
Plaintiff testified that, when Defendant consulted with him
regarding Ashley's treatment, he “told her [he] couldn't afford it
right at the time because [he] was already having financial
trouble.” Plaintiff felt Ashley did not need braces, and “just
figured she just wanted them.” Plaintiff agreed that the child
support order required him to reimburse Defendant for one half of
the expenses associated with extracting Ashley's teeth.
Upon conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found that “a
voluntary support order was entered in this action requiring the
father to pay child support in the amount of $175 per week plus one
half of all 'uninsured medical expenses.'” The trial court stated
that
[a] child's orthodontic treatment may come
within the term “medical expenses” as used in
a support order. However, since a large
percentage of such orthodontic treatment is
done for cosmetic reasons, the primary
question is whether or not the orthodontic
treatment of the child is reasonably necessary
for her health and is the proper treatment.
The trial court concluded Defendant had “failed to show that the
orthodontic treatment rendered in this case is medically necessary”
and denied Defendant's motion for payment of orthodontic expenses.
Defendant appealed.
_______________________________________________________
The issue on appeal is whether Defendant presented sufficient
evidence that her daughter's orthodontic treatment qualified as an“uninsured medical expense” under the terms of the child support
order. We hold the trial court erred in concluding that Defendant
failed to show that the orthodontic treatment was medically
necessary, rather than cosmetic, and we therefore reverse the
decision of the trial court.
A trial court may require “a parent of a minor child or other
responsible party to provide medical support for the child, or the
parties may enter into a written agreement regarding medical
support for the child.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.11(a) (2003).
Such an agreement may require “one or both parties to pay the
medical, hospital, dental, or other health care related expenses.”
Id. Under North Carolina's Child Support Guidelines, the “court
may order that uninsured medical or dental expenses in excess of
$100 per year or other uninsured health care costs (including
reasonable and necessary costs related to orthodontia, dental care
. . . ) be paid by the parents in proportion to their respective
incomes.”
Here, the trial court found that Plaintiff agreed to pay “one
half of the uninsured medical expenses” for his daughter. The
trial court concluded that, although the term “medical expenses”
included necessary orthodontic treatment, Defendant failed to
present sufficient evidence that her treatment was medically
necessary rather than cosmetic. We disagree.
Defendant presented substantial evidence that Ashley's
orthodontic treatment was reasonable and medically necessary. The
letter from the office of her treating orthodontist stated that thebraces were “necessary for the straightening of her teeth and also
her overall dental health for years to come.” The orthodontist
informed Ashley that the braces were required to prevent the
persistent soreness in her jaw and to prevent further elevation and
displacement of her eyeteeth. Defendant and Ashley testified the
misalignment of her teeth caused her to repeatedly bite her jaw,
causing “constant sores” inside her mouth. Plaintiff presented no
evidence that the treatment was for cosmetic purposes, other than
his unsupported opinion that Ashley “just wanted” rather than
needed braces. Plaintiff agreed that the child support order
required him to pay one half of the costs arising from the
extraction of four of Ashley's teeth.
Defendant presented substantial evidence that Ashley's
orthodontic treatment was undertaken for the good of her health,
rather than mere cosmetic purposes. The trial court's findings and
conclusions to the contrary are unsupported by the evidence
presented at trial. We therefore reverse the order of the trial
court.
Reversed.
Judges CALABRIA and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***