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

1,720 chars

o That "the practice"-meaning the three dentists, as partners--owned the
equipment of the practice and operated its business CAR at 145-47);

o That each dentist had his or her own patients (AR at 71-73; 156); and

o That the home page ofthe practice website for DeFelice Dentistry
characterized the practice in partnership terms, stating that "Dr. Armand
DeFelice, Dr. Lorrie Rosier and Dr. Louise DeFelice work together as a
team to provide you with the highest standard of dental care available."
(AR at 207, 230)

The department cross-examined Dr. Armand and Dr. Louise about the profit-

sharing arrangement. The ALJ also asked a number of questions. The department's

lawyer elicited Dr. Louise's agreement that under the dentists' distribution arrangement,

if Dr. Louise hypothetically did not work for a month, then she would not contribute

towards that month's overhead. AR at 159-60.

In rendering its decision following the hearing, the ALJ did not make a factual

finding as to whether the dentists had or had not orally agreed to begin operating as

partners sometime before 2010. The department had not thought it mattered; its position

was and remains that because the dentists admit that they never terminated the

association agreements in writing then the agreements were not terminated, period. The

2 The evidence at the hearing was in dollar terms; I substitute percentages out of
respect for the dentists' financial privacy. By the same analysis, Drs. Loretta and Louise
together produced approximately 64 percent of the total production in 2011. See AR at
234.
6

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