May 2025 Pension Report

Pension Law Demystified: When in Doubt, the Law Favors the Firefighter

If you’ve ever sat across the table from a Disability Board or read the fine print in a pension statute and thought, “This seems a little unclear,” you’re not alone. Statutory interpretation in pension law can be complex. But here's the incredible part: Washington law says that when the meaning of a pension statute is in doubt, it should be resolved in favor of the pensioner.

Let me say that again: when pension law is unclear, the default interpretation is one that benefits the firefighter.

This isn't just good policy — it's the law. The Washington Supreme Court has clearly stated this principle in multiple decisions, and it’s a powerful tool in protecting both our LEOFF 1 and LEOFF 2 members, whether retired or still on the job.

The Legal Doctrine

The foundational case for this doctrine is Bakenhus v. Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695 (1956). In Bakenhus, the Court held that pension laws form part of the employment contract and must be construed liberally in favor of the retiree:

“Pension statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of those intended to be benefited. Any doubt as to legislative intent should be resolved in favor of the pensioner.” — Bakenhus v. Seattle, 48 Wn.2d at 701.

This precedent has been reaffirmed repeatedly in Washington courts, most notably in Dailey v. Seattle, 54 Wn.2d 733 (1959), and Dillenburg v. Seattle, 69 Wn.2d 472 (1966). In Dailey, the Court again emphasized:

“Statutes providing for pensions are remedial in nature and should be given a liberal construction to carry out their beneficial purposes.”

The courts understand that pensioners — particularly those who dedicated their lives to dangerous public service — are not just stakeholders. We are the intended beneficiaries of a legal promise. When that promise gets cloudy, the courts lean toward those who stood the watch.

A Real-World Example: Chapter 41.26 RCW

Let’s look at how this doctrine plays out in the real world. Chapter 41.26 RCW governs the LEOFF system — the pension plan for Washington’s law enforcement officers and firefighters. When ambiguities arise in these statutes, the courts often invoke the Bakenhus doctrine to interpret the law in favor of the member.

In Widell v. City of Spokane, 46 Wn. App. 571 (1987), the issue was whether certain medical expenses for a LEOFF 1 retiree were covered under RCW 41.26.150. Spokane argued that the expenses were not necessary and therefore not reimbursable. But the court, applying Bakenhus, ruled in favor of the retiree:

“The statute is remedial and should be construed liberally to effect its purpose — the protection of retired firefighters. The legislative intent is clear: medical services necessary for the retiree’s health shall be paid.” — Widell, 46 Wn. App. at 577.

That case has real implications for our members when they go before Disability Boards to seek reimbursement for hearing aids, surgeries, or long-term prescriptions. If there's any statutory gray area, the law says the tie goes to the firefighter.

Why This Matters for You

Whether you're fighting for a needed medical benefit, disputing a procedural ruling, or simply trying to understand your pension rights, this principle works in your favor. It ensures that legal ambiguity doesn't become a tool for denial or delay. It reaffirms that our service — and our sacrifice — has weight in the eyes of the law.

This legal doctrine applies not only to retirees but also to currently employed LEOFF 1 and LEOFF 2 members. It helps ensure the promises made at the time of hiring are honored at the time of retirement — and long after.

At RFFOW, we will continue to invoke this foundational legal principle in advocating for our members. We didn’t earn our pensions easily, and we shouldn’t have to fight to defend them without the full backing of the law.

The next time you’re facing a challenge involving your benefits, remember: when in doubt, the law is on your side.

Would you like this version formatted into a printable PDF for The Dispatch, or expanded into a legal memo version for advocacy purposes?