- 16 -
Consequently, petitioners have failed the charge of Rule 121(d)
to set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for
trial.
We likewise give little import to petitioners’ denials of
certain more overarching requests for admission. Petitioners
refused to admit that petitioner did not perform medical services
as a sole proprietor on grounds that “Kevin Naughton, M.D. did
perform medical services as a sole proprietor/practitioner under
contract to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power”. They
similarly denied that petitioner was employed as a physician by
DWP on grounds that “he provided services as a sole practitioner
physician to the Department of Water and Power”. To reiterate a
point made previously, such conclusory assertions are hardly
sufficient to override what can be drawn from evaluating the full
circumstances of the case and certainly fail to set forth
specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.
As a final matter relating to petitioner’s employment
status, we make brief mention of section 530 of the Revenue Act
of 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, 92 Stat. 2763, 2885 (Section 530).
Petitioners devote a significant portion of their opposition to
this statute, asserting that DWP had a “reasonable basis” for
treating petitioner as an independent contractor. Section 530,
however, has no applicability to any issue we consider here. As
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011