Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.68
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.68.040 (2026)

Declaration of intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is the intent of this chapter, and this chapter shall be so construed, that persons so licensed shall only be authorized by law to charge or receive compensation for professional services rendered if such services are actually rendered by the licensee and not otherwise: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That it is not intended to prohibit two or more licensees who practice their profession as copartners to charge or collect compensation for any professional services by any member of the firm, or to prohibit a licensee who employs another licensee to charge or collect compensation for professional services rendered by the employee licensee.
[ 2000 c 171 s 57; 1949 c 204 s 4; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 10185-17.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1969–2010 · leading case: Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Assocs., PLLC, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Assocs., PLLC, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 6× “2d 1011 (1969), the statute exempts from its coverage profits earned by an employee of a firm and flowing to the firm’s owners, provided the owners practice in the firm, RCW 19.68.040. *439 As such, BFOA is entitled to summary judgment on Columbia’s antirebate statute claim.”
Day v. Inland Empire Optical, Inc., 456 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 8× “RCW 19.68.040. Deeming the defendant doctors and Inland Empire Optical to be in violation of the foregoing statutes, the court, upon findings of fact and conclusions of law, entered a decree (1) directing Inland Empire Optical Company under court supervision to divest itself…”
Wright v. Jeckle, 144 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2006). “shall be authorized by law to charge or receive compensation for professional services rendered if such services are actually rendered by the licensee").”
Wright v. Jeckle, 158 Wash. 2d 375 (Wash. 2006). “” RCW 19.68.040 specifically authorizes payment for services rendered (“persons .”
Columbia Physical Therapy v. Bfoa, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 6× “2d 1011 (1969), the statute exempts from its coverage profits earned by an employee of a firm and flowing to the firm's owners, provided the owners practice in the firm, RCW 19.68.040. As such, BFOA is entitled to summary judgment on Columbia's antirebate statute claim.”
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.