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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.290 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any civil action for damages based on professional negligence against a hospital which is licensed by the state of Washington or against the personnel of any such hospital, or against a member of the healing arts including, but not limited to, an acupuncturist or acupuncture and Eastern medicine practitioner licensed under chapter 18.06 RCW, a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 RCW, an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 18.57 RCW, a chiropractor licensed under chapter 18.25 RCW, a dentist licensed under chapter 18.32 RCW, a podiatric physician and surgeon licensed under chapter 18.22 RCW, or a nurse licensed under chapter 18.79 RCW, the plaintiff in order to prevail shall be required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant or defendants failed to exercise that degree of skill, care, and learning possessed at that time by other persons in the same profession, and that as a proximate result of such failure the plaintiff suffered damages, but in no event shall the provisions of this section apply to an action based on the failure to obtain the informed consent of a patient.
[ 2019 c 308 s 15; 2010 c 286 s 12; 1995 c 323 s 2; 1994 sp.s. c 9 s 702; 1985 c 326 s 26; 1983 c 149 s 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 35 s 1.]

Notes:

Findings—2019 c 308: See note following RCW 18.06.010.
Intent—2010 c 286: See RCW 18.06.005.
Severability—Headings and captions not law—Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 9: See RCW 18.79.900 through 18.79.902.
Limitations of actions for injuries resulting from health care or related services: RCW 4.16.350.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: Gates v. Jensen, 595 P.2d 919 (Wash. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gates v. Jensen, 595 P.2d 919 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 16× “James Hargiss, an ophthalmologist with the respondent Eye Clinic of Seattle. She complained of difficulty in focusing, blurring, and gaps in her vision.”
Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 9× “010 and/or RCW 4.24.290? b. May Leonard and Jean Harbeson recover damages? 3.”
Harris v. Groth, 663 P.2d 113 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 6× “One of those areas was the standard of care to be applied in actions for professional negligence.”
Keogan v. Holy Fam. Hosp., 622 P.2d 1246 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 4× “Snyder negligent as a matter of law for his failure to give the tests that would have diagnosed Keogan's heart condition, the plaintiffs would have to show that the applicable medical standard of care compelled him to rule out the possibility of heart disease when presented with…”
LeBeuf v. Atkins, 594 P.2d 923 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 12× “Enactment of RCW 4.24.290, Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess.”
Quimby v. Fine, 724 P.2d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “*181 However, we hold that the lack of informed consent claim against a health care provider may be within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, if it relates to the entrepreneurial aspects of the medical practice.”
Douglas v. Freeman, 814 P.2d 1160 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “In order to prevail in an action for corporate negligence against a hospital, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant .”
Byerly v. Madsen, 704 P.2d 1236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.24.290. The question of whether a defendant breached the standard of care is separate from whether the breach was the proximate cause of the patient's damages; a dispute as to proximate cause may still go to the jury even if a directed verdict is called for as to…”
Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “Under RCW 4.24.290 7 and RCW 7.70.040, 8 which govern negligence actions against health care providers, a health care provider has a duty to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning possessed, rather than actually practiced, by a reasonably prudent practitioner of the…”
Bauer v. White, 976 P.2d 664 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “— This medical malpractice case pits the apparent categorical requirement of RCW 4.24.290 and RCW 7.70.040 for e:xpert testimony to support a medical negligence claim against the long-standing Washington rule that unintentionally leaving a foreign object in a surgical patient is…”
Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., 681 P.2d 1305 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “" (italics ours)); RCW 4.24.290. 6 In addition, while trial courts possess a broad discretion in determining whether an expert is qualified, Harris v.”
Watson v. Hockett, 727 P.2d 669 (Wash. 1986). “35, § 1, codified as RCW 4.24.290. 25 Harris v. Groth, 99 Wn.2d 438, 451 , 663 P.”
Show all 31 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.