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

1,744 chars

10
             

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

commissioner apparently found her process testimony more credible. Fifth, Dr. Armand

argues the 40 percent production payments to Drs. Loretta and Louise show the

association agreements were terminated, however, these could be explained as

contract modifications. Sixth, while the creation of the PLLC in January 2013 and

individual maintenance of insurance may tend to show the existence of a partnership,

this circumstantial evidence is inconsistent with other evidence.

Given our analysis, we conclude the commissioner's findings of fact are

supported by substantial evidence. Next, we conclude the commissioner's conclusions

of law rejecting a partnership and deciding Drs. Loretta and Louise were in employment

are supported by the findings of fact.

Drs. Loretta and Louise must be in "employment" in order to for Dr. Armand to be

covered by the Employment Security Act. RCW 50.04.100. '''[E]mployment' exists if (1)

the worker performs personal services for the alleged employer, and (2) if the employer

pays wages for those services (or pays under any contract calling for personal

services)." W Ports Transp., Inc., 110 Wn. App. at 451.

To meet the first prong of this test, "the personal services must clearly be

performed for the alleged employer or for its benefit." Language Connection, LLC v.

Emp't Sec. Dep't, 149 Wn. App. 575, 582, 205 P.3d 924 (2009). Dr. Armand's dental

practice requires dentists in order to perform dental services. Drs. Loretta and Louise

provided such services for Dr. Armand's benefit. Thus, Drs. Loretta and Louise

performed personal services for Dr. Armand.