Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts
Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Ball-Foster Glass Contaiiler Co. v. Giovanelli, 128 Wn. App. 846, 117 P.3d 365 (2005). ............................................. 18 Cockle v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wn.2d 801, 16 P.3d 583 (2001) ................................................. 5, 19 Dana's Housekeeping, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 76 Wn. App. 600, 886 P.2d 1 147 (1995) .............................................. 14 Erakovic v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 132 Wn.App. 762, 134 P.3d 234 (2006) ............................................... 18 Gallo v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 155 Wn.2d 470, 120 P.3d 564 (2005) ..................................................... 5 Hertzke v. Dep 't of Retirement Sys., 104 Wn. App. 920, 18 P.3d 588 (2001) ............................................... 9 In re Carnahan, 149 N.H. 433, 821 A.2d 1122 (2003) ................................................... 15 Kilpatrick v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 125 Wn.2d 222, 915 P.2d 519 (1995) ................................................... 18 Kuhnle v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 12 Wn.2d 191, 120 P.2d 1003 (1942) .................................................. 18 Lloycls of Yakima Floor Center v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 33 Wn. App. 745, 662 P.2d 391 (1982); ............................................... 14 Peter M. Black Real Estate Co. v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 70 Wn. App. 482, 854 P.2d 46 (1993) ............................................ 12, 14 Pollard v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 123 Wn. App 506, 98 P.3d 545 (2004) ................................................. 18 Restaurant Dev., Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc., 150 Wn.2d 674, 80 P.3d 598 (2003). ..................................................... 5
Shelton v . Azar. 90 Wn . App . 923. 943 P.2d 352 (1998) ................................................ 18 State Farm Mut . Auto . Ins . v . Amirpanahi, 50 Wn . App . 869, 751 P.2d 329 (1988) ................................................. 8 The Quadrant Corp . v . Growth Mgmt . Hearings Bd., 154 Wn.2d 224. 110 P.3d 11 32 (2005) ................................................. 20 Watson v . Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 133 Wn . App . 903, 138 P.3d 177 (2006) .............................................. 5 Weyerhaeuser Co . v . Tri. 117 Wn.2d 128. 814 P.2d 629 (1991) ................................................... 18 White v . Dep 't of Labor & Indus., 48 Wn.2d 470. 294 P.2d 650 (1956) ..................................................... 14 Statutes RCW 26.19.071 ................................................................... 17 RCW 51 ........................................................................ 18. 20 RCW 5 1.08.178 ........................................................... ...p assim RCW 51.08.180 ......................................................... 12. 13. 14 RCW 51.08.195 ................................................................... 14 RCW 51.12.1 10 ............................................................... 12. 13 RCW 51.32.095 .................................................................... ~2 RCW 51.32.160 .................................................................... ~2 RCW 51.32.240 ..................................................................... 2
- Page 1 and 2: NO. 34504-8-11 COURT OF APPEALS, DI
- Page 3: Determine Earning Capacity Where A
- Page 7 and 8: I. OVERVIEW OF DEPARTMENT'S REPLY B
- Page 9 and 10: that the Board deducted from her gr
- Page 11 and 12: P.3d 583 (2001), the injured worker
- Page 13 and 14: equivalent could not be "fairly and
- Page 15 and 16: case. Hertzke v. Dep't ofRetirement
- Page 17 and 18: Employer's Quarterly Report of Hour
- Page 19 and 20: daily, weekly or monthly wage per R
- Page 21 and 22: Estate, 70 Wn. App. at 488; Lloyds
- Page 23 and 24: For example, a bookstore owner who
- Page 25 and 26: into a wage-equivalent (AB at 35-37
- Page 27 and 28: I. Case Law Analyzing The Fundament
- Page 29 and 30: expenditure was discretionary, but
- Page 31 and 32: cash to a bank account, and that th
- Page 33 and 34: lU/Jl/ZUUb 1Z:SY PAh JbUYUZP'b Clai
- Page 35 and 36: 10/31/2006 13:OO FAX 360902""5 Clai
- Page 37 and 38: Claims Adm. Policy Manual Policy 4.
- Page 39 and 40: '- Insurance Services Policy Manual
- Page 41 and 42: Appendix C
- Page 43 and 44: (4) In cases where a wage has not b
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES<br />
Cases<br />
Ball-Foster Glass Contaiiler Co. v. Giovanelli,<br />
128 Wn. App. 846, 117 P.3d 365 (2005). ............................................. 18<br />
Cockle v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus.,<br />
142 Wn.2d 801, 16 P.3d 583 (2001) ................................................. 5, 19<br />
Dana's Housekeeping, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.,<br />
76 Wn. App. 600, 886 P.2d 1 147 (1995) .............................................. 14<br />
Erakovic v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus.,<br />
132 Wn.App. 762, 134 P.3d 234 (2006) ............................................... 18<br />
Gallo v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus.,<br />
155 Wn.2d 470, 120 P.3d 564 (2005) ..................................................... 5<br />
Hertzke v. Dep 't of Retirement Sys.,<br />
104 Wn. App. 920, 18 P.3d 588 (2001) ............................................... 9<br />
In re Carnahan,<br />
149 N.H. 433, 821 A.2d 1122 (2003) ................................................... 15<br />
Kilpatrick v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus.,<br />
125 Wn.2d 222, 915 P.2d 519 (1995) ................................................... 18<br />
Kuhnle v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus.,<br />
12 Wn.2d 191, 120 P.2d 1003 (1942) .................................................. 18<br />
Lloycls of Yakima Floor Center v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus.,<br />
33 Wn. App. 745, 662 P.2d 391 (1982); ............................................... 14<br />
Peter M. Black Real Estate Co. v. Dep 't of Labor & Indus.,<br />
70 Wn. App. 482, 854 P.2d 46 (1993) ............................................ 12, 14<br />
Pollard v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,<br />
123 Wn. App 506, 98 P.3d 545 (2004) ................................................. 18<br />
Restaurant Dev., Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc.,<br />
150 Wn.2d 674, 80 P.3d 598 (2003). ..................................................... 5
Change language