Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.70
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No award shall be made in any action or arbitration for damages for injury occurring as the result of health care which is provided after June 25, 1976, unless the plaintiff establishes one or more of the following propositions:
(1) That injury resulted from the failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care;
(2) That a health care provider promised the patient or his or her representative that the injury suffered would not occur;
(3) That injury resulted from health care to which the patient or his or her representative did not consent.
Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving each fact essential to an award by a preponderance of the evidence.
[ 2011 c 336 s 250; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56 s 8.]

Notes:

Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56: See note following RCW 4.16.350.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 114 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Denise Reagan, V St. Elmo Newton, Iii, Md, 436 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Denise Reagan, V St. Elmo Newton, Iii, Md, 436 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 22× “” RCW 7.70.030, which establishes the grounds for a medical malpractice claim, also applies to injuries “occurring as the result of health care.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 26 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “RCW 7.70.030 reads: Propositions required to be established —Burden of proof.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash. 2d 91 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 5× “RCW 7.70.030 reads: Propositions required to be established — Burden of proof.”
Branom v. State, 974 P.2d 335 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “We also conclude that the specific question of whether the injury is actionable is governed by RCW 7.70.030. We next consider the scope of the phrase “health care,” as it is used in these sections.”
McKee v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 782 P.2d 1045 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 6× “RCW 7.70.030 requires that the plaintiff prove each fact essential to an award by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Judy v. Hanford Env't Health, 22 P.3d 810 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “RCW 7.70.030; Eelbode v. Chec Med. Ctrs., Inc.”
Judy v. Hanford Env't Health Found., 106 Wash. App. 26 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “RCW 7.70.030; Eelbode v. Chec Med. Ctrs., Inc.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 1 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 15× “Once it is established that an injury occurred as the result of health care, the question of whether the injury is actionable is governed by RCW 7.70.030. The Legislature has defined three bases for recovery under RCW 7.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 101 Wash. App. 141 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 15× “Once it is established that an injury occurred as the result of health care, the question of whether the injury is actionable is governed by RCW 7.70.030. The Legislature has defined three bases for recovery under RCW 7.”
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 386 P.3d 254 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.70.030. The first category describes negligence *281 actions.”
Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.70.030. 2 The standard of care embodied in RCW 4.”
Rasmussen v. Skagit Cnty., 448 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (W.D. Wash. 2006). · cites it 12× “030 is the Washington medical malpractice statute authorizing causes of action if a plaintiff can prove one of the following: (1) injury resulting from “failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care,” (2) that “a health care provider promised the…”
Show all 114 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.030(1) — 53 cases
Denise Reagan, V St. Elmo Newton, Iii, Md, 436 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” RCW 7.70.030, which establishes the grounds for a medical malpractice claim, also applies to injuries “occurring as the result of health care.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 26 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 7.70.030 reads: Propositions required to be established —Burden of proof.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash. 2d 91 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 7.70.030 reads: Propositions required to be established — Burden of proof.”
McKee v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 782 P.2d 1045 (Wash. 1989). “RCW 7.70.030 requires that the plaintiff prove each fact essential to an award by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 1 P.3d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Once it is established that an injury occurred as the result of health care, the question of whether the injury is actionable is governed by RCW 7.70.030. The Legislature has defined three bases for recovery under RCW 7.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.030(2) — 12 cases
Denise Reagan, V St. Elmo Newton, Iii, Md, 436 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” RCW 7.70.030, which establishes the grounds for a medical malpractice claim, also applies to injuries “occurring as the result of health care.”
Young v. Savidge, 230 P.3d 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Webb v. Neuroeducation Inc., PC, 88 P.3d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Young v. Savidge, 155 Wash. App. 806 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Branom v. State, 974 P.2d 335 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “We also conclude that the specific question of whether the injury is actionable is governed by RCW 7.70.030. We next consider the scope of the phrase “health care,” as it is used in these sections.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.030(3) — 19 cases
Branom v. State, 974 P.2d 335 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “We also conclude that the specific question of whether the injury is actionable is governed by RCW 7.70.030. We next consider the scope of the phrase “health care,” as it is used in these sections.”
Seybold v. Neu, 105 Wash. App. 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Seybold v. Neu, 19 P.3d 1068 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983). “RCW 7.70.030. 2 The standard of care embodied in RCW 4.”
Bundrick v. Stewart, 114 P.3d 1204 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
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.