Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.130

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.098

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The settlement process must be substantially uniform for licensees governed by disciplining authorities under this chapter. The disciplinary [disciplining] authorities may also use alternative dispute resolution to resolve complaints during adjudicative proceedings.
(2) Disclosure of the identity of reviewing disciplining authority members who participate in the settlement process is available to the respondent or his or her representative upon request.
(3) The settlement conference will occur only if a settlement is not achieved through written documents. The respondent will have the opportunity to conference either by phone or in person with the reviewing disciplining authority member if the respondent chooses. The respondent may also have his or her attorney conference either by phone or in person with the reviewing disciplining authority member without the respondent being present personally.
(4) If the respondent wants to meet in person with the reviewing disciplining authority member, he or she will travel to the reviewing disciplining authority member and have such a conference with a department representative in attendance either by phone or in person.
[ 1995 c 336 s 7; 1994 sp.s. c 9 s 604.]

Notes:

Severability—Headings and captions not law—Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 9: See RCW 18.79.900 through 18.79.902.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Clausing v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clausing v. State (1998) washctapp “See RCW 18.130.098. While the governing statutes are replete with procedures for the hearing process itself, no provisions explicitly describe the proper procedure for Board deliberations once a hearing is concluded.”
Clausing v. State (1998) washctapp “See RCW 18.130.098. While the governing statutes are replete with procedures for the hearing process itself, no provisions explicitly describe the proper procedure for Board deliberations once a hearing is concluded.”
Lawrence v. Department of Health (2006) washctapp “See RCW 18.130.098; RCW 34-.05.431; State v. Swarva, 86 Wn.”
Timothy Bruce Price v. Dep't of Health (2026) washctapp · cites it 6× “He also argued summary judgment should not be granted until “the parties are able to engage in alternative dispute resolution pursuant to RCW 18.130.098.” AR at 545. The presiding officer granted partial summary judgment and denied Dr.”
Lawrence v. Department of Health (2006) washctapp “416 (Decision not to conduct an adjudication). To rule otherwise would contradict clear APA and UDA purposes behind holding settlement conferences and encouraging settlement agreements.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.098(1) — 1 case
Timothy Bruce Price v. Dep't of Health (2026) washctapp “He also argued summary judgment should not be granted until “the parties are able to engage in alternative dispute resolution pursuant to RCW 18.130.098.” AR at 545. The presiding officer granted partial summary judgment and denied Dr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.098(3) — 1 case
Timothy Bruce Price v. Dep't of Health (2026) washctapp “He also argued summary judgment should not be granted until “the parties are able to engage in alternative dispute resolution pursuant to RCW 18.130.098.” AR at 545. The presiding officer granted partial summary judgment and denied Dr.”
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.