Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts

statute, nor did the Legislature include any language in RCW 5 1.08.1 78
suggesting that gross receipts from self-employment equals wages.
Further, the Washington appellate cases upon which Malang relies
to support her assertion that RCW 51.08.178(1) expressly and
comprehensively defines the term "wages" must be distinguished from her
case. As the Department explained in its appeal brief at page 27, nothing
in the statute, RCW 51.08.178, or in the case law cited by Malang defines
the word "wages," nor does the statute and case law prescribe the method
that must be used to translate earnings from self-employment into wages.
Contrary to Malang's argument, RCW 5 1.08.178(1) cannot be
used to determine Malang's wages because there is no evidence that she
paid herself a fixed monthly, daily or hourly wage, as required by express
language of the fixed-wage calculation formulas found in
RCW 5 1.08.178(1). In addition, Malang offered no evidence concerning
the hours per day that she normally worked. Thus, nothing in the record
permits the use of RCW 5 1.08.178(1) to determine her monthly wage.
All of the cases cited in Malang's respondent's brief in her attempt
to support the contention that the word "wages" is defined in
RCW 5 1.08.178(1) involved workers who were not self-employed and
who earned a conventional fixed hourly cash wage.
In Cockle v. Department of Labor & Industries, 142 Wn.2d 801, 805, 16