November 26, 2025 | Washington, D.C — MedLegalNews.com — A Washington appellate panel has ruled that the state Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) correctly recalculated a paramedic’s disability pension benefits and did not engage in any intentional or unjustified delay while issuing his retroactive payments. The decision in Yetter v. Department of Labor and Industries (Nov. 17, 2025) provides fresh guidance on what constitutes a legitimate administrative delay versus conduct that warrants penalties.
Former Paramedic’s Claim Evolved Into a Pension Dispute
Gary Yetter originally sought benefits for an injury he suffered while working as a King County paramedic in 2017. His claim went through years of litigation, including an initial denial and later proceedings that ultimately resulted in his approval for long-term disability pension status.
Once his pension was granted, DLI had to review several years’ worth of claim activity to determine the correct amount of retroactive payments. The recalculation process required DLI to confirm past wage data, evaluate benefit periods, and reconcile earlier decisions with the updated pension status.
Yetter argued that the agency took too long and used incorrect financial figures. He asked the courts to intervene.
Appellate Panel: Delay Was Administrative, Not Misconduct
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Yetter’s position, finding that:
- DLI followed the correct statutory process,
- The benefit calculations were supported by the administrative record, and
- The pace of the review did not rise to the level of “unreasonable delay.”
Under Washington law, a delay is considered unreasonable only when the agency acts arbitrarily, ignores evidence, or intentionally refuses to process a claim. The judges noted that DLI’s timetable reflected the complexity of recalculating a multi-year pension rather than any neglect or bad faith.
In short, administrative workload and verification steps do not equal misconduct.
What This Means for Future Pension Recalculations
1. Complex pension reviews can take time
When a claim shifts from standard benefits to pension status, DLI must audit previous wage and payment history. The ruling confirms that this review period is not automatically considered improper.
2. Workers must show more than delay
To request penalties, a claimant must prove that the delay lacked justification or stemmed from arbitrary decision-making — a high threshold that the court emphasizes still applies today.
3. Documentation remains critical
The case underscores the importance of maintaining accurate earnings and claim records, as retroactive pension calculations depend on the completeness of the underlying file.
For readers tracking Washington workers’ compensation procedures, the Department of Labor & Industries publishes guidance on pension classifications and benefits here.
Stay updated on ongoing coverage of high-stakes workers’ compensation rulings? Subscribe to MedLegalNews.com for breaking updates. Subscribe today.
🔗 Read More from MedLegalNews.com:
- AB 1415: New California Healthcare Transparency Law Takes Effect in 2026
- NY Court Rejects School Custodian’s COVID-19 Workers’ Comp Claim
- CMA Backs Bill to Expand Physician Network for IMEs and QMEs
- Georgia Appeals Court Revives Malpractice Case Against Regional Hospital
- DWC Revises Inpatient Hospital Fee Schedule to Reflect Medicare Updates
FAQs: DLI Disability Pension Calculation
Why was the calculation disputed?
The worker argued that DLI relied on incorrect wage and benefit figures when determining how much retroactive pension he should receive.
What standard does the court use for “unreasonable delay”?
Washington courts look for arbitrary, unsupported, or unjustified conduct — not routine administrative processing or backlog.
Can workers appeal DLI pension calculations?
Yes. A worker may challenge DLI’s determination before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and, if needed, pursue further review in the appellate courts.
Does this ruling set new precedent?
Although the decision is unpublished, it illustrates how appellate courts analyze delay-related penalty claims and may influence similar arguments in future cases.