Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.130

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.010

Intent

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is the intent of the legislature to strengthen and consolidate disciplinary and licensure procedures for the licensed health and health-related professions and businesses by providing a uniform disciplinary act with standardized procedures for the licensure of health care professionals and the enforcement of laws the purpose of which is to assure the public of the adequacy of professional competence and conduct in the healing arts.
It is also the intent of the legislature that all health and health-related professions newly credentialed by the state come under the Uniform Disciplinary Act.
Further, the legislature declares that the addition of public members on all health care commissions and boards can give both the state and the public, which it has a statutory responsibility to protect, assurances of accountability and confidence in the various practices of health care.
[ 1994 sp.s. c 9 s 601; 1991 c 332 s 1; 1986 c 259 s 1; 1984 c 279 s 1.]

Notes:

Severability—Headings and captions not law—Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 9: See RCW 18.79.900 through 18.79.902.
Application to scope of practice—1991 c 332: "Nothing in sections 1 through 39 of this act is intended to change the scope of practice of any health care profession referred to in sections 1 through 39 of this act." [ 1991 c 332 s 46.]
Captions not law—1991 c 332: "Section captions and part headings as used in this act constitute no part of the law." [ 1991 c 332 s 43.]
Severability—1986 c 259: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1986 c 259 s 152.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Janaszak v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Janaszak v. State (2013) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 18.130.010. Deschamps v. Mason County Sheriff’s Office, 123 Wn.”
Heinmiller v. Department of Health (1995) wash · cites it 2× “See RCW 18.130.010. Disciplinary action is the tool provided by the Act for the achievement of this goal.”
Heinmiller v. Department of Health (1995) wash · cites it 2× “See RCW 18.130.010. Disciplinary action is the tool provided by the Act for the achievement of this goal.”
Nguyen v. STATE HEALTH MED. QUALITY ASSUR. (2001) wash “RCW 18.130.010 indicates the purpose of the Act "is to assure the public of the adequacy of professional competence and conduct in the healing arts.”
Nguyen v. Department of Health (2001) wash “RCW 18.130.010 indicates the purpose of the Act “is to assure the public of the adequacy of professional competence and conduct in the healing arts.”
Department of Labor & Industries v. Kantor (1999) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 18.130.010. The UDA applies only to those boards and commissions with jurisdiction over the licensure and discipline of health care providers in particular specialties.”
Sherman v. Kissinger (2008) washctapp “130 RCW is to regulate “disciplinary and licensure procedures for the licensed health and health-related professions and businesses” by providing uniform disciplinary procedures and licensing requirements.”
Sherman v. Kissinger (2008) washctapp “" RCW 18.130.010. Neither of these unrelated regulatory statutes means that the limitation of claims against doctors in the medical malpractice act includes veterinarians.”
Brown v. Department of Health (1998) washctapp “” RCW 18.130.010. The Act provides that “[i]ncompetence, negligence, or malpractice which results in injury to a patient or which creates an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed” constitutes unprofessional conduct for any license holder under the jurisdiction of the…”
Alsager v. Board of Osteopathic Medicine & Surgery (2013) wawd · cites it 4× “001 et seq: To that end, the Board disciplines osteopathic physicians in Washington who conduct* themselves in an “unprofessional manner” as defined in Washington’s Health Professions Uniform Disciplinary Act (“UDA”) RCW § 18.130.010, et seq. RCW §§ 18.130.040(2)(vii) and 18.”
Dale E. Alsager, D.o., Phd. v. Wa State Bd Of Osteopathic Medicine (2016) washctapp “” RCW 18.130.010; see also Kindschi, 52 Wn.”
Seymour v. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH, DQAC (2009) washctapp “[3] Yoshinaka involved an investigation into a complaint of unprofessional conduct against a psychologist. Our analysis, however, was not limited to the UDA's application to investigations concerning psychologists.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.