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

1,740 chars

Louise. Id Dr. Louise testified that Ms. Hughes never spoke with her. AR at 155.

Ms. Hughes therefore had no occasion to ask anyone about which dentists made

decisions about operations, whether individual dentists had their own patients, whether

the dentists shared profits, or other business or financial matters relevant to operation as a

partnership. Although DeFelice Dentistry had some employees and filed reports and paid

unemployment insurance taxes, Ms. Hughes evidently never asked why the dental

practice was paying employment taxes with respect to some of its employees but not with
j
respect to Drs. Loretta and Louise.
1
i When the lawyer for DeFelice Dentistry was informed that Ms. Hughes had
j

I concluded that an assessment of contributions, interest and penalties against Dr. Armand

iI
I
dba Armand V. DeFelice DDS was in order based on his asserted employment of Drs.

Loretta and Louise, the lawyer asked Ms. Hughes if there could be an exit interview in

order to explain why an assessment would be in error. Ms. Hughes declined, stating that

Dr. Armand could appeal. While Ms. Hughes was entitled to close her-audit without

granting further interviews, the result was that the department did not have any occasion

to further inquire about the substance of the dentists' business relationship before the

appeal hearing.

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

Dr. Armand did appeal. In his prehearing memorandum filed three months before

the administrative hearing, he characterized the association agreements as "ancient

document[s]," stated that the relationship between the dentists had been amended orally