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

1,710 chars

evidence supported the ALJ's finding. But here, the ALJ implicitly accepted the

department's argument that there was no issue of fact because the association agreements

were never terminated in writing; as a result, it must treat the relationship as governed by

those agreements. The ALJ made no findings addressing the actual nature of the dentists'

business relationship during the audit period.

The ALl's implicit conclusion that the association agreements remained binding

as a matter oflaw is subject to de novo review, and was in error. As a result, the

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

commissioner's adopted findings 1 through 12, all of which are predicated on the

conclusion that the association agreements remained in effect as a matter of law, are

II
§
unsupported.

Sharing profits does not require strictly equal sharing and it was legal
I error to conclude otherwise.
,
Dr. Armand and Dr. Louise both testified that in arriving at a partnership

II arrangement, they recognized that the dental practice ordinarily operates with overhead

amounting to 60 percent of collected revenues, with the result that there is ordinarily 40

percent in profits available to share. Both testified, and the ALJ found, that by the time

I
, of the audit, Drs. Loretta and Louise were paid 40 percent of their production. AR at 294

(finding 13). This is contrary to the association agreements' provisions that the daughters

would be paid 35 percent. Dr. Armand received whatever was left-which, if the parties

were right about the overhead, would be something close to 40 percent of the remaining