Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,790 chars
before the audit period as "can be established by a quick review ofthe Income

Statement," and stated that by the time of the audit period, the dentists "are in fact

partners." AR at 259.

One might infer from the majority's opinion that the department then developed

and presented evidence at the hearing relevant to the substance of the dentists' business

relationship during the audit period, so that the ALJ's task was to determine whose

evidence about the actual dental practice operations, financial and otherwise, was worthy

of belief. But at the time of the administrative hearing, the department did not offer

evidence on the substance ofthe dentists' relationship. It called only one witness-Ms.

Hughes, who knew nothing about actual practice operations during the audit period. In

an examination in the department's opening case that comprises only eight pages of the

administrative record (the department's rebuttal case is reflected on an additional two

pages), the department presented Ms. Hughes' evidence on the only two facts it viewed

as mattering: (1) Dr. Armand was registered with and reported to several agencies as a

sole proprietorship, and (2) Ms. Hughes was given two association agreements for Drs.

Loretta and Louise, dated 1990 and 2004, respectively, that the department argued were

4
             

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

required by their terms to be terminated in writing, but never were. See AR at 102-09,

125 (department examination in opening case); AR at 83-84 (rebuttal evidence).

Dr. Armand's defense case was itself not long, although longer than the

department's. At issue, after all, was only a $1,869 assessment. AR at 222. Through Dr.