Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts

essential to determine wages under the fixed-wage formulas of
RCW 5 1.08.178(1), are missing in Malang's case.
Further, Malang's vague and conclusory suggestion that the
Legislature intended that RCW 51.08.178(1) to apply in her case is
unpersuasive. From the evidence in this record, the only provision in
RCW 51.08.178 under which the Department and the Board could
possibly determine a "monthly wage" for Malang from self-employment is
the "fairly and reasonably determine" provision of subsection (4), which is
the position that the Department and the Board have consistently taken in
this case.
To the extent that the Department's argument and the Board's
ruling below did not expressly invoke the "fairly and reasonably
determine" provision of RCW 5 1.08.178(4), the principles supporting the
identical Department and Board approaches have been consistent
throughout this case. Even if one assumes that the Department's citation
to RCW 51.08.178(4) in support of its argument is new, it is not a "new
theory" but simply new "authority" to support a consistently made
argument. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Amirpanahi, 50 Wn.
App. 869, 872 n. 1, 75 1 P.2d 329 (1 988).
Finally, even if the Department is raising a new argument, this
Court has inherent authority to consider all issues necessary to resolve the