State of Minnesota Regarding the Parties: Jennifer A. Mills, petitioner, Respondent, vs. David S. Anderson, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1998).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C2-98-1248

State of Minnesota Regarding the Parties:

Jennifer A. Mills, petitioner,

Respondent,

vs.

David S. Anderson,

Appellant.

 Filed February 16, 1999

 Reversed and Remanded

 Kalitowski, Judge

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.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 KALITOWSKI, 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.

 D E C I S I O N

This court will not reverse a child support determination unless the determination is clearly erroneous. Justis v. Justis, 384 N.W.2d 885, 890 (Minn. App. 1986). If the determination has a reasonable basis in fact, it must be affirmed. Id.

 I.

Child support is based on the net income of the obligor. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) (1998). Net income is total monthly income less costs, which include taxes, social security deductions, dependent health insurance coverage, and individual health insurance coverage or actual medical expenses. Id. This court will not reverse a trial court's determination of net income used to calculate child support if it has a reasonable basis in fact. Strauch v. Strauch, 401 N.W.2d 444, 448 (Minn. App. 1987).

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.

 II.

Appellant contends the district court erred in finding he had the financial ability to contribute to unreimbursed medical and dental expenses, to pregnancy and birthing costs, and to past unpaid child support. If health or dental insurance does not pay the existing reasonable and necessary medical or dental expenses of a child, and if the court finds that an obligor has the financial ability to contribute to the payment of those expenses, the court shall require the obligor to be liable for all or a portion of those expenses. Minn. Stat. § 518.171, subd. 1(c) (1998). The court may also order the appropriate party to pay all or a proportion of the reasonable expenses of the mother's pregnancy and confinement, taking into consideration the relative financial means and earning ability of the parents. Minn. Stat. §257.66, subd. 3 (1998).

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.