Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.83
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.83.110 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Confidential communications between a client and a psychologist shall be privileged against compulsory disclosure to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as confidential communications between attorney and client, but this exception is subject to the limitations under RCW 71.05.217 (6) and (7).
[ 2020 c 302 s 116; 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 414; 2005 c 504 s 706; 1989 c 271 s 303; 1987 c 439 s 12; 1965 c 70 s 11; 1955 c 305 s 11.]

Notes:

Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Findings—Intent—Severability—Application—Construction—Captions, part headings, subheadings not law—Adoption of rules—Effective dates—2005 c 504: See notes following RCW 71.05.027.
Alphabetization—Correction of references—2005 c 504: See note following RCW 71.05.020.
Severability—1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
PDF

RCW 18.83.110

Privileged communications. (Effective October 1, 2025.)

Confidential communications between a client and a psychologist or licensed psychological associate shall be privileged against compulsory disclosure to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as confidential communications between attorney and client, but this exception is subject to the limitations under RCW 71.05.217 (6) and (7).
[ 2024 c 371 s 6; 2020 c 302 s 116; 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 414; 2005 c 504 s 706; 1989 c 271 s 303; 1987 c 439 s 12; 1965 c 70 s 11; 1955 c 305 s 11.]

Notes:

Effective dates—2024 c 371 ss 1-12, 14, and 16: See note following RCW 18.19.020.
Rule making—2024 c 371 ss 1-16: See note following RCW 18.83.020.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Findings—Intent—Severability—Application—Construction—Captions, part headings, subheadings not law—Adoption of rules—Effective dates—2005 c 504: See notes following RCW 71.05.027.
Alphabetization—Correction of references—2005 c 504: See note following RCW 71.05.020.
Severability—1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). · cites it 2× “2 (1992); Wash. Rev. Code § 18.83.110 (1994); W. Va.”
State v. Post, 837 P.2d 599 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 3× “Post claims the use of this information and the testimony at the sentencing hearing violated his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and *601 the psychologist-patient privilege of RCW 18.83.110. We conclude that the trial court properly considered the 1980…”
Petersen v. State, 671 P.2d 230 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “B The privilege of communications between psychologist and patient is set forth in RCW 18.83.110, which provides: Confidential communications between a client and a psychologist shall be privileged against compulsory disclosure to the same extent and subject to the same…”
State v. Fagalde, 539 P.2d 86 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 5× “The appellant contends this testimony was privileged under RCW 18.83.110 and RCW 69.54.070. The respondent calls the court’s attention to the fact that when the testimony was offered, the appellant claimed the doctor-patient privilege and did not cite the statutes relied upon in…”
CJC v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 985 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “[8] RCW 18.83.110 governs the client-psychologist privilege.”
C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 138 Wash. 2d 699 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “8 RCW 18.83.110 governs the client-psychologist privilege.”
Magney v. Pham, 466 P.3d 1077 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 4× “See RCW 18.83.110. 12 Magney et al. v. Pham, MD et al.”
State v. Cross, 156 Wash. 2d 580 (Wash. 2006). “060; RCW 18.83.110; Sullivan, 60 Wn.2d at 223 .”
State v. Cross, 132 P.3d 80 (Wash. 2006). “060; RCW 18.83.110; Sullivan, 60 Wash.2d at 223 , 373 P.”
J.N. v. Bellingham Sch. Dist. No. 501, 871 P.2d 1106 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “In response to a motion to compel production, the District claimed the assessment was a "Psychologist’s Report” privileged under RCW 18.83.110. Finding that the psychological evaluation *55 was "privileged by Patient/Psychologist Privilege”, the trial court initially denied…”
Hertog v. City of Seattle, 138 Wash. 2d 265 (Wash. 1999). “) RCW 18.83.110 provides that “[c]onfidential communications between a client and a psychologist shall be privileged against compulsory disclosure to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as confidential communications between attorney and client.”
HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle, 979 P.2d 400 (Wash. 1999). “) RCW 18.83.110 provides that "[c]onfidential communications between a client and a psychologist shall be privileged against compulsory disclosure to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as confidential communications between attorney and client.”
Show all 38 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.