Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.250 (2026)

Health care provider filing charges or presenting evidence—Immunity—Information sharing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Any health care provider as defined in RCW 7.70.020 (1) and (2) who, in good faith, files charges or presents evidence against another member of their profession based on the claimed incompetency or gross misconduct of such person before a regularly constituted review committee or board of a professional society or hospital whose duty it is to evaluate the competency and qualifications of members of the profession, including limiting the extent of practice of such person in a hospital or similar institution, or before a regularly constituted committee or board of a hospital whose duty it is to review and evaluate the quality of patient care and any person or entity who, in good faith, shares any information or documents with one or more other committees, boards, or programs under subsection (2) of this section, shall be immune from civil action for damages arising out of such activities. For the purposes of this section, sharing information is presumed to be in good faith. However, the presumption may be rebutted upon a showing of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the information shared was knowingly false or deliberately misleading. The proceedings, reports, and written records of such committees or boards, or of a member, employee, staff person, or investigator of such a committee or board, are not subject to review or disclosure, or subpoena or discovery proceedings in any civil action, except actions arising out of the recommendations of such committees or boards involving the restriction or revocation of the clinical or staff privileges of a health care provider as defined in RCW 7.70.020 (1) and (2).
(2) A coordinated quality improvement program maintained in accordance with RCW 43.70.510 or 70.41.200, a quality assurance committee maintained in accordance with RCW 18.20.390 or 74.42.640, or any committee or board under subsection (1) of this section may share information and documents, including complaints and incident reports, created specifically for, and collected and maintained by, a coordinated quality improvement committee or committees or boards under subsection (1) of this section, with one or more other coordinated quality improvement programs or committees or boards under subsection (1) of this section for the improvement of the quality of health care services rendered to patients and the identification and prevention of medical malpractice. The privacy protections of chapter 70.02 RCW and the federal health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 and its implementing regulations apply to the sharing of individually identifiable patient information held by a coordinated quality improvement program. Any rules necessary to implement this section shall meet the requirements of applicable federal and state privacy laws. Information and documents disclosed by one coordinated quality improvement program or committee or board under subsection (1) of this section to another coordinated quality improvement program or committee or board under subsection (1) of this section and any information and documents created or maintained as a result of the sharing of information and documents shall not be subject to the discovery process and confidentiality shall be respected as required by subsection (1) of this section and by RCW 43.70.510(4), 70.41.200(3), 18.20.390 (6) and (8), and 74.42.640 (7) and (9).
[ 2005 c 291 s 1; 2005 c 33 s 5; 2004 c 145 s 1; 1981 c 181 s 1; 1979 c 17 s 1; 1977 c 68 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 114 s 2; 1971 ex.s. c 144 s 1.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2005 c 33 s 5 and by 2005 c 291 s 1, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Findings—2005 c 33: See note following RCW 18.20.390.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 24× “QVMC claimed the documents were exempt from disclosure under RCW 4.24.250 (documents prepared for and maintained by a regularly constituted peer review *226 committee), RCW 70.”
Coburn v. Seda (Wash. 1984). · cites it 13× “Petitioner Kadlec Hospital challenges a trial court order to answer an interrogatory and produce records of a hospital committee, asserting that the requested information is immune from discovery under RCW 4.24.250 and the common law. We hold RCW 4.”
Adcox v. Child.'s Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr. (Wash. 1993). · cites it 7× “200 and RCW 4.24.250. RCW 70.41.200 requires hospitals to establish quality assurance committees which will review hospital services in order to improve patient care and prevent medical malpractice.”
Lowy v. PeaceHealth (Wash. 2012). · cites it 5× “RCW 4.24.250 was the first of these peer review statutes; it was enacted in 1971 and prohibited discovery of records of internal proceedings where one member of the health care profession presents evidence of negligence or incompetence’against another.”
Fellows v. Moynihan (Wash. 2012). · cites it 10× “This case also implicates the applicability of the peer review privilege, RCW 4.24.250. ¶2 After the Court of Appeals denied discretionary review, this court granted petition for review.”
Anderson v. Breda (Wash. 1985). · cites it 9× “He refused to answer these questions, claiming privilege pursuant to the provisions of RCW 4.24.250. Petitioners moved to compel Dr.”
State Ex Rel. Chandra v. Sprinkle (Mo. 1984). · cites it 2× “Statutes bearing similarities to RCW 4.24.250 prohibit discovery of records on the theory that external access to committee investigations stifles candor and inhibits constructive criticism thought necessary to effective quality review.”
Sanderson v. Frank S. Bryan, M.D., Ltd. (Pa. 1987). “3-7 (Supp.1984); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 36-4-26.”
Bruce L. Davidson, M.d. v. Robb W. Glenny, M.d., Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “020 to determine whether a nonphysician could be part of a “peer review committee” under RCW 4.24.250. Id. Although both statutes use the phrase “peer review committee,” RCW 28B.”
Lowy v. PeaceHealth (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “¶ 14 The statute addressed in Coburn was RCW 4.24.250, which protects records created by regularly constituted committees that evaluate the quality of patient care in hospitals or similar institutions.”
Lowy v. PeaceHealth (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “*721 ¶14 The statute addressed in Coburn was RCW 4.24.250, which protects records created by regularly constituted committees that evaluate the quality of patient care in hospitals or similar institutions.”
Ragland v. Lawless (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “Claiming immunity under RCW 4.24.250, SCMS refused to comply with the discovery request.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.250(1) — 8 cases
Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 (Wash. 2013). “QVMC claimed the documents were exempt from disclosure under RCW 4.24.250 (documents prepared for and maintained by a regularly constituted peer review *226 committee), RCW 70.”
Lowy v. PeaceHealth (Wash. 2012). “RCW 4.24.250 was the first of these peer review statutes; it was enacted in 1971 and prohibited discovery of records of internal proceedings where one member of the health care profession presents evidence of negligence or incompetence’against another.”
Fellows v. Moynihan (Wash. 2012). “This case also implicates the applicability of the peer review privilege, RCW 4.24.250. ¶2 After the Court of Appeals denied discretionary review, this court granted petition for review.”
Bruce L. Davidson, M.d. v. Robb W. Glenny, M.d., Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “020 to determine whether a nonphysician could be part of a “peer review committee” under RCW 4.24.250. Id. Although both statutes use the phrase “peer review committee,” RCW 28B.”
Estes v. Providence Health & Servs. - Washington (E.D. Wash. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.250(1)(2) — 1 case
Lowy v. PeaceHealth (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 14 The statute addressed in Coburn was RCW 4.24.250, which protects records created by regularly constituted committees that evaluate the quality of patient care in hospitals or similar institutions.”
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.