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

1,763 chars
not supported by the evidence; Ms. Hughes admitted she only asked if there were

agreements with the form 1099 recipients and simply assumed that the dentists stood in

an employment relationship from the two association agreements that were produced in

response. 3 Those agreements, which indisputably created an employment relationship,

3 Ms. Hughes testified as follows:
Q. Were you provided with any copies of any written contracts or
agreements between Loretta and Armand DeFelice?

A. Yes. 1 asked for-when 1 saw their names on the 1099,1 asked for
any agreements and did receive a-the agreements for each of them, that
they had signed with Dr. Armand.

AR at 108. On cross-examination, she testified:

Q. Did you ask either lady or anyone that gave you the agreement or
agreements whether or not the agreements were valid and enforceable?

A. Well, since 1 had-was talking to the bookkeeper and had asked for
the agreement, 1 assumed the one she gave me would be valid.

Q. You assumed, but you didn't ask?
A. 1 didn't ask if what she was giving me was valid, no.
AR at 112-13.
10
             

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

would have been 22 and 8 years old by the time of the department's 2012 audit. AR at

113-14, 125.

It was the position of the department that it didn't matter ifthe dentists had orally

agreed to change the nature of their relationship, because they had never terminated the

association agreements in writing. The ALJ adopted the position of the department,

finding that the association agreements "[were] to continue until termination in a manner

set forth in the agreement, specifically paragraph 7 and 8." AR at 292 (finding 2). Many