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

1,677 chars

Armand's petition for review, his testimony and that of Dr. Louise, and the cross-

examination of Ms. Hughes, Dr. Armand presented evidence and argument on the

following matters:

o That Ms. Hughes never asked whether the association agreements were in
effect during the audit period and was never told by any representative of
the practice that they were (AR at 108, 112-13);

o That the dental practice had evolved into a partnership; according to Dr.
Louise, this was in or about 2008 (AR at 73-74, 78-79, 86-87);

o That based on the practice's operating overhead of 60 percent of total
collected revenues, the three dentists had arrived at a profit sharing
arrangement designed to distribute to each dentist a 40 percent profit on his
or her production, although Drs. Loretta and Dr. Louise took distribution
checks based on a flat 40 percent profit, while Dr. Armand agreed to
assume the benefit or burden of a somewhat higher or lower percentage
(depending on whether the overhead proved to be a lower or higher
percentage of total collected revenues) (AR at 156-57, 159);

o That based on the daughters' 40 percent profit sharing distribution
established at the hearing, one could determine by analyzing the income
statements that Dr. Armand had received a similar share of the profits (AR
at 36-37);

o That Dr. Armand did not control the work of his daughters, who were
experienced and successful professionals and together produced

5
             

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

approximately 63 percent of the total production of the practice in 2010
CAR at 119-20, 163-64)2;