Douglas Merino, V. Dept. Of Retirement Systems
55353-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 15, 2022Background
- Douglas Merino was a Washington State Patrol (WSP) officer, placed on job-related disability in 1994 and receiving vested disability benefits.
- After a 2008 felony conviction, WSP terminated Douglas; in November 2009 he executed a refund form and withdrew all WSPRS contributions, acknowledging cancellation of rights to future retirement benefits.
- In 2018 Douglas and his wife Kay sought a declaratory ruling that Kay would be entitled to a spousal survivor allowance if Douglas predeceased her under RCW 43.43.270(5)(a).
- The Department of Retirement Systems denied relief, the Department’s presiding officer granted the Department’s summary judgment, and the superior court affirmed.
- The central legal question: does withdrawal of WSPRS contributions after disability/termination eliminate any survivor benefit payable under RCW 43.43.270?
- The Court of Appeals held that withdrawal reduced Douglas’s retirement allowance to zero, and therefore any survivor benefit under RCW 43.43.270(2) would be zero; the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kay is entitled to survivor benefits under RCW 43.43.270(5)(a) because Douglas was a member at time of disability | Merino: disability vesting (Merino II) entitles spouse to survivor allowance | Dept: Douglas withdrew contributions and ceased membership; even if eligible, retirement allowance is zero | Held: Withdrawal extinguished retirement allowance; survivor benefit is zero, so no payment due |
| Whether Merino II vested survivor benefits | Merino: Merino II’s vesting of disability benefits includes survivor retirement benefits | Dept: Merino II addressed only disability compensation, not WSPRS/survivor benefits | Held: Merino II inapplicable to RCW 43.43.270 survivor entitlement |
| Effect of withdrawing WSPRS contributions on membership/benefit rights | Merino: (implicit) withdrawal does not preserve survivor payout | Dept: refund form cancels rights to future defined retirement benefits, including survivor options | Held: Withdrawal cancels retirement entitlement; member has no retirement allowance |
| Entitlement to attorney fees | Merino: sought fees under RAP 18.1 and RCW 49.48.030 | Dept: Merinos not prevailing; statute inapplicable to agency benefits claim | Held: No attorney fees awarded (Merinos did not prevail; statute not applicable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Merino v. State, 179 Wn. App. 889 (2014) (held disability benefits vest at time of injury and continue despite termination)
- Verizon Nw., Inc. v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 164 Wn.2d 909 (2008) (summary-judgment standard overlays APA review when administrative decision was on summary judgment)
- Linville v. Dep’t of Ret. Sys., 11 Wn. App. 2d 316 (2019) (error-of-law standard for reviewing agency interpretation; substantial weight to agency expertise)
- In re Forfeiture of One 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle, 166 Wn.2d 834 (2009) (statutory interpretation: ascertain legislature’s intent; use ordinary meaning and context)
- Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593 (2011) (summary judgment standards; view evidence favorably to nonmoving party)