Wash. Rev. Code » Title 41 · Chapter 41.26
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.26.200 (2026)

Appeal to director of retirement systems

✓ current as of May 2026
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) ***
Any person feeling aggrieved by any order or determination of a disability board denying disability leave or disability retirement, or canceling a previously granted disability retirement allowance, shall have the right to appeal the order or determination to the director. The director shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal unless a notice of appeal is filed with the director within thirty days following the rendition of the order by the applicable disability board. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served upon the director and the applicable disability board and, within ninety days thereof, the disability board shall certify its decision and order which shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with a transcript of all proceedings in connection therewith, to the director for review. Upon review of the record, the director may affirm the order of the disability board or may remand the case for such further proceedings as he or she may direct, in accordance with such rules of procedure as the director shall promulgate.
[ 1981 c 294 s 5; 1974 ex.s. c 120 s 6; 1971 ex.s. c 257 s 13; 1970 ex.s. c 6 s 11; 1969 ex.s. c 209 s 16.]

Notes:

Severability—1981 c 294: See note following RCW 41.26.115.
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 6 cases, 1978–1988 · leading case: City of Pasco v. Napier, 755 P.2d 170 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Pasco v. Napier, 755 P.2d 170 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 5× “It held that the City had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because it had not appealed the second grant of benefits under RCW 41.26.200. The appellate court also held that Napier's employment contract clearly entitled him to sick leave pending appeal.”
Rayburn v. City of Seattle, 709 P.2d 399 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 41.26.200, .220. The public policy requiring absolute immunity is well stated in Sellars v.”
O'Connor v. Washington Law Enf't Officers' & Fire Fighters' Ret. Bd., 584 P.2d 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.26.200. Mr. O'Connor filed such an appeal following the Local Board's 1975 order canceling his disability retirement allowance.”
Boyles v. Washington Law Enf't Officers' & Fire Fighters' Ret. Bd., 669 P.2d 465 (Wash. 1983). “RCW 41.26.200. RCW 41.26.220 provides that upon such appeal, a hearing de novo shall be conducted by the retirement board or its duly authorized representatives.”
City of Pasco v. Napier, 733 P.2d 994 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.26.200 governs the right to appeal a disability board decision: Any person feeling aggrieved by any order or determination of a disability board denying disability leave or disability retirement, or canceling a previously granted *900 disability retirement allowance,…”
Boyles v. Wash. Law Enf't Officers'& Fire Fighters'Ret. Bd., 669 P.2d 465 (Wash. 1983). “Judicial review of this decision is then governed by the provisions of the administrative procedure act, RCW 34.”
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.