Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.60

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.510

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) By requesting noneconomic damages under this chapter, a claimant does not place his or her health at issue or waive any health care privilege under RCW 5.60.060 or 18.83.110, or any other law, unless the claimant:
(a) Alleges a specific diagnosed physical or psychiatric injury as a proximate result of the respondents' conduct, and relies on the records or testimony of a health care provider or expert witness to seek general damages; or
(b) Alleges failure to accommodate a disability or alleges discrimination on the basis of a disability.
(2) Any waiver under subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this section is limited to health care records and communication between a claimant and his or her provider or providers:
(a) Created or occurring in the period beginning two years immediately preceding the first alleged unlawful act for which the claimant seeks damages and ending at the last date for which the claimant seeks damages, unless the court finds exceptional circumstances to order a longer period of time; and
(b) Relating specifically to the diagnosed injury, to the health care provider or providers on which the claimant relies in the action, or to the disability specifically at issue in the allegation.
[ 2020 c 254 s 1; 2018 c 70 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: Magney v. Pham
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Magney v. Pham (2020) wash · cites it 3× “See RCW 49.60.510. Under that new law,5 a privilege holder who brings a WLAD claim does not waive privilege simply by requesting noneconomic damages such as emotional distress.”
Konda v. United Airlines Inc (2023) wawd · cites it 12× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.510 (1)(a)–(b). 10 Konda argues that even if her lawsuit “technically” waives the physician-patient privilege, 11 records about her diabetes are not relevant because there is no dispute that she has diabetes or that 12 the Go Pack is an effective…”
Robertson v. Catholic Community Services of Western Washington (2020) wawd “CODE 18 § 49.60.510(2)). On this record, the Court accepts this as a reasonable restriction on the scope 19 of discovery.”
Hadley v. Foster Farms LLC (2021) wawd “See RCW 49.60.510. However, Plaintiff’s complaint is 6 not limited to state-law claims under the WLAD.”
Nathaniel Lerum v. Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc., et al. (2026) wawd “6, 2017); see also RCW 49.60.510 10 (limiting waiver of heath care privileges in claims under the Washington Law Against 11 Discrimination).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.510(1) — 1 case
Magney v. Pham (2020) wash “See RCW 49.60.510. Under that new law,5 a privilege holder who brings a WLAD claim does not waive privilege simply by requesting noneconomic damages such as emotional distress.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.510(1)(a) — 2 cases
Magney v. Pham (2020) wash “See RCW 49.60.510. Under that new law,5 a privilege holder who brings a WLAD claim does not waive privilege simply by requesting noneconomic damages such as emotional distress.”
Konda v. United Airlines Inc (2023) wawd “” Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.510 (1)(a)–(b). 10 Konda argues that even if her lawsuit “technically” waives the physician-patient privilege, 11 records about her diabetes are not relevant because there is no dispute that she has diabetes or that 12 the Go Pack is an effective…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.510(2) — 1 case
Robertson v. Catholic Community Services of Western Washington (2020) wawd “CODE 18 § 49.60.510(2)). On this record, the Court accepts this as a reasonable restriction on the scope 19 of discovery.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.510(2)(a) — 1 case
Konda v. United Airlines Inc (2023) wawd “” Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.510 (1)(a)–(b). 10 Konda argues that even if her lawsuit “technically” waives the physician-patient privilege, 11 records about her diabetes are not relevant because there is no dispute that she has diabetes or that 12 the Go Pack is an effective…”
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.