read: If a surviving spouse receiving benefits under the provisions of this section thereafter dies or remarries and there are children as defined in RCW 41.26.030(7), as now or hereafter amended, payment to the spouse shall cease and the child or children shall receive the benefits as provided in subsection (3) above. (Emphasis added.) The 1977 amendment then deleted "or remarries” from the statute. 2 In re F.D. Processing, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 452, 460, 832 P.2d 1303 (1992). 3 In re F.D. Processing, 119 Wn.2d at 460. 4 In re F.D. Processing, 119 Wn.2d at 461. 5 In re F.D. Processing, 119 Wn.2d at 462-63 (quoting In re Mota, 114 Wn.2d 465, 471, 788 P.2d 538 (1990)). 6 In re F.D. Processing, 119 Wn.2d at 463. 7 See, e.g., Merrigan v. Epstein, 112 Wn.2d 709, 717, 773 P.2d 78 (1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Lewis H. Orland & David G. Stebing,
holding that statute mandating an extension of time in which a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case may file a certificate of qualified expert circumstances was procedural and therefore applied retroactively to cases pending when the law was enacted holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case holding that a north carolina rule requiring an expert certification in a medical malpractice case applied in a federal tort claims act case sounding in medical malpractice brought in federal court holding at least under the facts of the case that the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action did not begin to run until the plaintiff secured a specific medical diagnosis