Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.130
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.160 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Upon a finding, after hearing, that a license holder has committed unprofessional conduct or is unable to practice with reasonable skill and safety due to a physical or mental condition, the disciplining authority shall issue an order including sanctions adopted in accordance with the schedule adopted under RCW 18.130.390 giving proper consideration to any prior findings of fact under RCW 18.130.110, any stipulations to informal disposition under RCW 18.130.172, and any action taken by other in-state or out-of-state disciplining authorities. The order must provide for one or any combination of the following, as directed by the schedule, except as provided in RCW 9.97.020:
(1) Revocation of the license;
(2) Suspension of the license for a fixed or indefinite term;
(3) Restriction or limitation of the practice;
(4) Requiring the satisfactory completion of a specific program of remedial education or treatment;
(5) The monitoring of the practice by a supervisor approved by the disciplining authority;
(6) Censure or reprimand;
(7) Compliance with conditions of probation for a designated period of time;
(8) Payment of a fine for each violation of this chapter, not to exceed five thousand dollars per violation. Funds received shall be placed in the health professions account;
(9) Denial of the license request;
(10) Corrective action;
(11) Refund of fees billed to and collected from the consumer;
(12) A surrender of the practitioner's license in lieu of other sanctions, which must be reported to the federal data bank.
Any of the actions under this section may be totally or partly stayed by the disciplining authority. Safeguarding the public's health and safety is the paramount responsibility of every disciplining authority. In determining what action is appropriate, the disciplining authority must consider the schedule adopted under RCW 18.130.390. Where the schedule allows flexibility in determining the appropriate sanction, the disciplining authority must first consider what sanctions are necessary to protect or compensate the public. Only after such provisions have been made may the disciplining authority consider and include in the order requirements designed to rehabilitate the license holder. All costs associated with compliance with orders issued under this section are the obligation of the license holder. The disciplining authority may order permanent revocation of a license if it finds that the license holder can never be rehabilitated or can never regain the ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety.
Surrender or permanent revocation of a license under this section is not subject to a petition for reinstatement under RCW 18.130.150.
The disciplining authority may determine that a case presents unique circumstances that the schedule adopted under RCW 18.130.390 does not adequately address. The disciplining authority may deviate from the schedule adopted under RCW 18.130.390 when selecting appropriate sanctions, but the disciplining authority must issue a written explanation of the basis for not following the schedule.
The license holder may enter into a stipulated disposition of charges that includes one or more of the sanctions of this section, but only after a statement of charges has been issued and the license holder has been afforded the opportunity for a hearing and has elected on the record to forego such a hearing. The stipulation shall either contain one or more specific findings of unprofessional conduct or inability to practice, or a statement by the license holder acknowledging that evidence is sufficient to justify one or more specified findings of unprofessional conduct or inability to practice. The stipulation entered into pursuant to this subsection shall be considered formal disciplinary action for all purposes.
[ 2016 c 81 s 18; 2008 c 134 s 10. Prior: 2006 c 99 s 6; 2006 c 8 s 104; 2001 c 195 s 1; 1993 c 367 s 6; 1986 c 259 s 8; 1984 c 279 s 16.]

Notes:

Finding—Conflict with federal requirements—2016 c 81: See notes following RCW 9.97.010.
Finding—Intent—Severability—2008 c 134: See notes following RCW 18.130.020.
Findings—Intent—Part headings and subheadings not law—Severability—2006 c 8: See notes following RCW 5.64.010.
Severability—1986 c 259: See note following RCW 18.130.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Heinmiller v. Dep't of Health, 127 Wash. 2d 595 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heinmiller v. Dep't of Health, 127 Wash. 2d 595 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 3× “See RCW 18.130.160. Misconduct is not less harmful to the public simply because the professional who engages in it fails to recognize it as such.”
Heinmiller v. Dep't of Health, 903 P.2d 433 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 3× “See RCW 18.130.160. Misconduct is not less harmful to the public simply because the professional who engages in it fails to recognize it as such.”
Haley v. Med. Disciplinary Bd., 818 P.2d 1062 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “RCW 18.130.160. [2-5] Because the Board is an administrative agency, judicial review of the Board's decisions is limited by the Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34.”
Nghiem v. State, 869 P.2d 1086 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “] Based on RCW 18.130.160, the Board revoked Dr. Nghi-em’s license.”
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cohen, 881 P.2d 1001 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “24 The discipline alternatives available to the examining board of psychology are listed in RCW 18.130.160. 25 Omer v. Edgren, 38 Wn.”
Dale E. Alsager, D.o., Phd. v. Wa State Bd Of Osteopathic Med., 196 Wash. App. 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See RCW 18.130.160. However, any authority imposing sanctions under the UDA, including fines, “must first consider what sanctions are necessary to protect or compensate the public.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Kantor, 973 P.2d 30 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “This includes the state board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, the body that determines Kantor’s eligibility to hold a medical license. RCW 18.”
Lang v. Dental Quality Assurance Comm'n, 156 P.3d 919 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “*255 ¶64 The Commissions’ presiding officer did not abuse his discretion by denying the motion to compel. SANCTIONS ¶65 The Uniform Disciplinary Act allows a disciplining authority, or its delegates, to impose sanctions based on a finding of unprofessional conduct.”
Client A v. Yoshinaka, 128 Wash. App. 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “121; RCW 18.130.160. Ch. 18.130 RCW. See also RCW 18.”
Olmstead v. Dep't of Health, 812 P.2d 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “The stipulation stated that violation of the assurance of discontinuance was grounds for disciplinary action under RCW 18.130.160. In a separate agreement with a Seattle hospital, Dr.”
Alsager v. Bd. of Osteopathic Med. & Surgery, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (W.D. Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW § 18.130.160. B. INVESTIGATION OF PLAINTIFF The Amended Complaint alleges that in Plaintiffs case, the Board’s investigator sent him a letter on November 26, 2012, informing Plaintiff that the Board had received a complaint against him and was investigating that complaint.”
Ludeman v. Dep't of Health, 951 P.2d 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “33 Former RCW 18.130.160(8), which was enacted in 1984, provides that the disciplinary authority may impose a fine of up to $1,000 per violation.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.160(3) — 1 case
Randall J. Kincheloe v. Wa State Dept. Of Health (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.160(4) — 1 case
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Kantor, 973 P.2d 30 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “This includes the state board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, the body that determines Kantor’s eligibility to hold a medical license. RCW 18.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.160(5) — 1 case
Randall J. Kincheloe v. Wa State Dept. Of Health (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.160(7) — 1 case
Randall J. Kincheloe v. Wa State Dept. Of Health (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.160(8) — 2 cases
Ludeman v. Dep't of Health, 951 P.2d 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “33 Former RCW 18.130.160(8), which was enacted in 1984, provides that the disciplinary authority may impose a fine of up to $1,000 per violation.”
Ludeman v. State, Dept. of Health, 951 P.2d 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.160(9) — 1 case
Randall J. Kincheloe v. Wa State Dept. Of Health (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
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.