- 8 -
Petitioner next argues that the time its radiation
technicians spent maintaining and operating the radiation
equipment is not time spent performing services in the healthcare
field. Petitioner further adds that this time amounted to at
least 10 percent of petitioner’s employees’ total time performing
services for petitioner, so it did not spend substantially all
(95 percent) of its time in the healthcare field.
The time petitioner’s radiation technicians spent
maintaining and operating the radiation equipment, however, is
not only incident to, but integral to, the overall provision of
radiation therapy to petitioner’s cancer patients. Petitioner’s
radiation technicians operated petitioner’s LINAC radiation
therapy machines and provided cobalt therapy to treat
petitioner’s cancer patients. Accordingly, the time petitioner’s
radiation technicians spent operating the radiation equipment is
time spent performing services in the healthcare field. In
addition, the time they spent maintaining the radiation equipment
is time spent providing support services incident to the
performance of their services in the healthcare field. We
therefore find that all of the time spent by petitioner’s
radiation technicians was time spent performing services in the
healthcare field or performing services incident to the
performance of services in the healthcare field.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007