Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts
Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts
Decisions In re Black Real Estate, BIIA Dec., 88 1191, 88 1 192 (1989). ........................................ 14 In re Daniel A. Renshaw, BIIA Dckt. Nos. 02 16572, 02 16573 (Aug. 27, 2003).. ................. 24 In re Howard Fisher, BIIA Dckt. No. 00 2 1778 (June 25, 2002). ................................ .17 In re Jerry Uhri, BIIA Dec., 93 6908, 1995 WL 565948 ( 1 995). ................... .6, 1 1 , 17 In re Kenneth Paige, BIIA Dckt. NOS. 93 2534-36, 93-2547-49, 93-2633-35 (March 7, 1994). .............................................................. .22
I. OVERVIEW OF DEPARTMENT'S REPLY BRIEF In its opening brief, the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) explained that, because subsections (1) and (2) of the wage computation statute at RCW 51.08.178 do not apply to the facts of this case involving a sole proprietor who did not earn "wages" in the ordinary sense of the term, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board): (1) correctly invoked of RCW 5 1.08.1 78(4), which requires that a wage- equivalent be "fairly and reasonably determined," and (2) correctly used an adjusted net profit method, deducting certain self-employment business expenses from the gross receipts Crescent Realty disbursed to Malang and reported on Form 1099 (Miscellaneous Income), to arrive at a wage- equivalent for Malang. This Board ruling was dictated by the statute and by common sense because Malang was engaged in activities both as employer and as employee at her own real estate business. AB at 27-35.' The Department further explained in its opening brief: (1) that other jurisdictions interpreting similar statutory schemes take a similar approach and reject the use of gross receipts or gross income of sole proprietors as "wages" (AB at 35-38); (2) that Malang's gross receipts equals wages theory leads to particularly absurd results when applied to a I '.AB" refers to the Department's appel1ant.s brief and .'RB" refers to respondent's brief.
- Page 1 and 2: NO. 34504-8-11 COURT OF APPEALS, DI
- Page 3 and 4: Determine Earning Capacity Where A
- Page 5: Shelton v . Azar. 90 Wn . App . 923
- 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
I. OVERVIEW OF DEPARTMENT'S REPLY BRIEF<br />
In its opening brief, the Department of Labor and Industries<br />
(Department) explained that, because subsections (1) and (2) of the wage<br />
computation statute at RCW 51.08.178 do not apply to the facts of this<br />
case involving a sole proprietor who did not earn "wages" in the ordinary<br />
sense of the term, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board):<br />
(1) correctly invoked of RCW 5 1.08.1 78(4), which requires that a wage-<br />
equivalent be "fairly and reasonably determined," and (2) correctly used<br />
an adjusted net profit method, deducting certain self-employment business<br />
expenses from the gross receipts Crescent Realty disbursed to Malang and<br />
reported on Form 1099 (Miscellaneous Income), to arrive at a wage-<br />
equivalent for Malang. This Board ruling was dictated by the statute and<br />
by common sense because Malang was engaged in activities both as<br />
employer and as employee at her own real estate business.<br />
AB at 27-35.'<br />
The Department further explained in its opening brief: (1) that<br />
other jurisdictions interpreting similar statutory schemes take a similar<br />
approach and reject the use of gross receipts or gross income of sole<br />
proprietors as "wages" (AB at 35-38); (2) that Malang's gross receipts<br />
equals wages theory leads to particularly absurd results when applied to a<br />
I '.AB" refers to the Department's appel1ant.s brief and .'RB" refers to<br />
respondent's brief.
Change language