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

1,785 chars

11
             

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

For the second prong, the contract called for the performance of personal

services with Drs. Loretta and Louise receiving remuneration from Dr. Armand.

'"Wages''' are "remuneration paid by one employer during any calendar year to an

individual in its employment." RCW 50.04.320(1). '"Remuneration''' includes "all

compensation paid for personal services." RCW 50.04.320(4). The money collected

from the dental practice's patients was collected by Dr. Armand and deposited into Dr.

Armand's account. Dr. Armand then paid Drs. Loretta and Louise out of this account.

Drs. Loretta and Louise did not receive their payment when they finished a procedure.

See Penick, 82 Wn. App. at 41 (holding employer paid wages when he collected

payment from customers without evidence of separate accounts between sole

proprietor and his employees and employees did not receive payment when a

transaction closed but bi-weekly).

CONCLUSION

We hold the Department's commissioner, by adopting the ALJ's findings of fact

and conclusions of law, correctly decided Dr. Loretta and Dr. Louise were covered

employees under Washington's Employment Security Act. Because Dr. Armand does

not argue Drs. Loretta and Louise were independent contractors, we do not address the

Department's briefing on that subject. Finally, considering our holding, we do not reach

12
             

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

Dr. Armand's attorney fee requests because the Department prevails.

Affirmed.

Brown, J.

I CONCUR:

13