Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 323820.opn.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/323820.opn.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,719 chars

the Department and the Washington Department of Revenue. In 1990, Dr. Armand and

Dr. Loretta entered into an association agreement which specifically stated Dr. Loretta

was not a partner. In 2004, Dr. Armand and Dr. Louise entered into a substantially

similar association agreement which again explicitly stated Dr. Louise was not a partner.

These association agreements provided for each of the dentist's responsibilities,

providing for the manner of termination in paragraphs seven and eight. 4 However,

terminable-at-will contracts5 may be unilaterally modified provided reasonable notice is

given; once given, the old contract is effectively displaced. See Duncan v. Alaska USA

Fed. Credit Union, Inc., 148 Wn. App. 52, 76-78, 199 P.3d 991 (2008).

The commissioner, by adopting the ALJ's findings and conclusions, found the

association agreements remained effective and rejected Dr. Armand's partnership

3 Dr. Armand assigns error to the following findings of fact: 1-14, 16, and 17. He
assigns error to the following conclusions of law: 6, 7, 8, and 11.
4 These paragraphs provide the association agreement could be terminated
upon 30 days' notice by either party or in the event of incapacity.
5 A terminable-at-will employment relationship is one where the employment is of
indefinite duration and may be terminated at any time, with or without cause, by either
the employer or the employee. Quedado v. Boeing Co., 168 Wn. App. 363, 367, 276
P.3d 365, review denied, 175 Wn.2d 1011 (2012).

8
             

No. 32382-0-111
DeFelice v. Emp't Sec. Dep't

claims. We do not reexamine evidence weight and witness credibility determinations on