Wash. Rev. Code » Title 41 · Chapter 41.26

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.26.045

Minimum medical and health standards

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2034-S2.SL) ***
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law after February 19, 1974 no law enforcement officer or firefighter, may become eligible for coverage in the pension system established by this chapter, until the individual has met and has been certified as having met minimum medical and health standards: PROVIDED, That an elected sheriff or an appointed chief of police or fire chief, shall not be required to meet the age standard: PROVIDED FURTHER, That in cities and towns having not more than two law enforcement officers and/or not more than two firefighters and if one or more of such persons do not meet the minimum medical and health standards as required by the provisions of this chapter, then such person or persons may join any other pension system that the city has available for its other employees: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That for one year after February 19, 1974 any such medical or health standard now existing or hereinafter adopted, insofar as it establishes a maximum age beyond which an applicant is to be deemed ineligible for coverage, shall be waived as to any applicant for employment or reemployment who is otherwise eligible except for his or her age, who has been a member of any one or more of the retirement systems created by chapter 41.20 of the Revised Code of Washington and who has restored all contributions which he or she has previously withdrawn from any such system or systems.
(2) This section shall not apply to persons who initially establish membership in the retirement system on or after July 1, 1979.
[ 2012 c 117 s 40; 1979 ex.s. c 249 s 3; 1977 ex.s. c 294 s 20; 1974 ex.s. c 120 s 8; 1971 ex.s. c 257 s 3.]

Notes:

Severability—1974 ex.s. c 120: See note following RCW 41.26.030.
Purpose—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 257: See notes following RCW 41.26.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2002–2005 · leading case: Pasco v. Department of Retirement Systems
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pasco v. Department of Retirement Systems (2002) washctapp · cites it 9× “In 1998, the Department corrected its records to show that Andres was entitled to LEOFF Plan 1 membership as of June 1974. B.”
City of Pasco v. Department Retirement Systems (2002) washctapp · cites it 9× “In 1998, the Department corrected its records to show that Andres was entitled to LEOFF Plan 1 membership as of June 1974. B.”
Tucker v. DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS (2005) washctapp · cites it 2× “030(4) defined a fire fighter as: (a) any person who is serving on a full time, fully compensated basis as a member of a fire department of an employer and who is serving in a position which requires passing a civil service examination for fire fighter, and who is actively…”
Tucker v. Department of Retirement Systems (2005) washctapp “030(4) defined a fire fighter as: (a) any person who is serving on a full time, fully compensated basis as a member of a fire department of an employer and who is serving in a position which requires passing a civil service examination for fire fighter, and who is actively…”
Buckley v. Department of Retirement Systems (2003) washctapp “RCW 41.26.045(1). The parties do not contest this requirement on appeal.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.26.045(1) — 3 cases
Pasco v. Department of Retirement Systems (2002) washctapp “In 1998, the Department corrected its records to show that Andres was entitled to LEOFF Plan 1 membership as of June 1974. B.”
City of Pasco v. Department Retirement Systems (2002) washctapp “In 1998, the Department corrected its records to show that Andres was entitled to LEOFF Plan 1 membership as of June 1974. B.”
Buckley v. Department of Retirement Systems (2003) washctapp “RCW 41.26.045(1). The parties do not contest this requirement on appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.