Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts

Fisher and Uhri cases, as in the instant case, may not be extreme.
Principle and common sense must guide the Court's analysis, however,
and there is no principled or common sense way to distinguish such sole
proprietorships in a way that would allow Malang to treat all of her gross
receipts as wages.
F. Washington's Child Support Statute Provides The Court With
Insight Regarding The Common Sense Way To Determine
Earning Capacity Where A Person Is Self-Employed
Malang suggests that the Court don blinders and refuse to look to
the way another statute, Washington's child support statute,
RCW 26.19.071, and case law thereunder recognize that gross receipts
from self-employment is not equal to individual earning capacity.
RB at 4648. While RCW 26.19.071 does not apply here, the same
common sense principle that leads to its net-income approach should lead
to a net-income approach here, where RCW 5 1.08.178(4) leaves it open to
this Court to so apply common sense to "fairly and reasonable determine"
Malang 's wage-equivalent. See AB at 3 1-32.
G. Washington Appellate Courts Often Consider Case Law From
Other Jurisdictions When It Is Helpful In Interpreting
Analogous Provisions Of Washington's Workers'
Compensation Statute
In response to the Department's explanation that courts in other
jurisdictions use a net income approach to translate gross business receipts