experience during the period of time she worked for AORN. In summary, the undisputed facts indicate that Weissman concealed her employment with AORN, in part, because she believed she would increase her chances of gaining employment with Crawford by not listing a negative reference. Additionally, the undisputed facts indicate that Weissman listed Kirk Advertising as a full-time employer, even though she had only worked for Kirk Advertising on a sporadic basis. Because Weissman’s intent may be inferred from her actions and statements, these facts support the trial court’s conclusion that Weissman concealed her employment with AORN and listed her employment with Kirk Advertising with the intent to create a false impression on her employment application. See Kopeikin, 679 P.2d at 602 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court, which considered
holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence holding that an agreement may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence including such badges of fraud as understatement of income inadequate records and implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances