Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.04.050 (2026)

Health services provider's testimony not privileged

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In all hearings, actions or proceedings before the department or the board of industrial insurance appeals, or before any court on appeal from the board, any health services provider having theretofore examined or treated the claimant may be required to testify fully regarding such examination or treatment, and shall not be exempt from so testifying by reason of the relation of the health services provider to patient.
[ 2023 c 171 s 1; 2004 c 65 s 2; 1961 c 23 s 51.04.050. Prior: 1915 c 188 s 4; RRS s 7687.]

Notes:

Effective date—Retroactive application—2023 c 171: "This act takes effect July 1, 2025, and applies retroactively." [ 2023 c 171 s 13.]
Report to legislature—Effective date—Severability—2004 c 65: See notes following RCW 51.04.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1968–2003 · leading case: Holbrook v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 822 P.2d 271 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holbrook v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 822 P.2d 271 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 10× “*311 RCW 51.04.050 abolishes [3] the physician-patient privilege: In all hearings, actions or proceedings before the department or the board of industrial insurance appeals, or before any court on appeal from the board, any physician having theretofore examined or treated the…”
Rowe v. Vaagen Bros. Lumber Inc., 996 P.2d 1103 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “RCW 51.04.050 (emphasis added). By its terms, RCW 51.”
Phipps v. Sasser, 445 P.2d 624 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 2× “ted the physician-patient privilege and limited its scope, as we have seen, but acted with equal clarity and certainty in designating the areas in which it shall not be operative — for an example see our workmen's compensation act which contains the following provision: In all…”
Rowe v. Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Inc., 100 Wash. App. 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 51.04.050 (emphasis added). By its terms, RCW 51.”
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.