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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from the failure of the health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care:
(a) The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider at that time in the profession or class to which he or she belongs, in the state of Washington, acting in the same or similar circumstances;
(b) Such failure was a proximate cause of the injury complained of.
(2)(a) The following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from the failure of a health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care in acting or failing to act following the proclamation of a state of emergency in all counties in the state of Washington by the governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on February 29, 2020, and until the state of emergency is terminated:
(i) The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider at that time in the profession or class to which he or she belongs, in the state of Washington, acting in the same or similar circumstances, taking into account whether the act or omission:
(A) Was in good faith based upon guidance, direction, or recommendations, including in interim or preliminary form, published by the federal government, the state of Washington or departments, divisions, agencies, or agents thereof, or local governments in the state of Washington or departments, divisions, agencies, or agents thereof, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and applicable to such health care provider; or
(B) Was due to a lack of resources including, but not limited to, available facility capacity, staff, and supplies, directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic;
(ii) Such failure was a proximate cause of the injury complained of.
(b) The provisions in (a) of this subsection apply only if relevant to the determination of whether the health care provider followed the standard of care, as determined by the court.
(c) If any health care provider presents evidence described in (a) of this subsection, the injured patient or the patient's representative is permitted to present rebuttal evidence, so long as such evidence is otherwise admissible.
[ 2021 c 241 s 2; 2011 c 336 s 251; 1983 c 149 s 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56 s 9.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—2021 c 241: "(1) The legislature finds that the COVID-19 pandemic, a public health crisis, has placed an oversized burden on Washington's health care providers and health care facilities, as they care for communities and families.
(2) The legislature further finds that during the pandemic, the law should accurately reflect the realities of the challenging practice conditions. It is fair and appropriate to give special consideration to the challenges arising during the pandemic, such as evolving and sometimes conflicting direction from health officials regarding treatment for COVID-19 infected patients, supply chain shortages of personal protective equipment and testing supplies, and a proclamation on nonurgent procedures resulting in delayed or missed health screenings and diagnoses.
(3) The legislature intends, during the period of the declared state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, to amend the current standard of care law governing health care providers to give special consideration to additional relevant factors." [ 2021 c 241 s 1.]
Effective date—2021 c 241: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 10, 2021]." [ 2021 c 241 s 3.]
Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56: See note following RCW 4.16.350.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 219 cases (76 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Mohr v. Grantham, 262 P.3d 490 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mohr v. Grantham, 262 P.3d 490 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 28× “RCW 7.70.040. Whether there is a cause of action for a lost chance of a better outcome in the medical malpractice context is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
McKee v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 782 P.2d 1045 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 33× “[3] The only evidence offered by McKee concerning the standard of care of a pharmacist practicing in Washington was an affidavit of an Arizona physician.”
Harris v. Groth, 663 P.2d 113 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 12× “56, § 9, codified as RCW 7.70.040; Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess.”
Keck v. Collins, 357 P.3d 1080 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 4× “RCW 7.70.040; Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 26 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “[53] MEDICAL MALPRACTICE The elements of medical malpractice are set forth in RCW 7.70.040: (1) The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider at that time in the profession or class to…”
Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash. 2d 91 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “53 Medical Malpractice The elements of medical malpractice are set forth in RCW 7.70.040: “(1) The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider at that time in the profession or class to…”
Hill v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., 177 P.3d 1152 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “RCW 7.70.040. The issue is whether the Hills' experts established the second element.”
Douglas v. Freeman, 814 P.2d 1160 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 6× “Furthermore, RCW 7.70.040 provides: The following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from the failure of the health care provider to follow the accepted standard of care: (1) The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and…”
Hill v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., 143 Wash. App. 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “¶24 Again, to recover damages for medical negligence, the plaintiff must establish that (1) the health care provider breached the accepted standard of care and (2) the breach was a proximate cause of the injury complained of.”
Denise Reagan, V St. Elmo Newton, Iii, Md, 436 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “030(1), a plaintiff must prove both that the health care provider “failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider” and that such failure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.”
Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 770 P.2d 182 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.70.040. At issue is whether the health care defendants' administration and monitoring of Devan's Theo-Dur dosage breached the standard of care and whether the prescribed dosage proximately caused Devan's injuries.”
Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 3× “This legislation limited actions against health care providers to three categories: where the plaintiff establishes negligence; where the plaintiff establishes that the health care provider promised the injury suffered would not occur; and where *469 the plaintiff establishes…”
Show all 219 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.040(1) — 94 cases
Harris v. Groth, 663 P.2d 113 (Wash. 1983). “56, § 9, codified as RCW 7.70.040; Laws of 1975, 1st Ex. Sess.”
Hill v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., 177 P.3d 1152 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 7.70.040. The issue is whether the Hills' experts established the second element.”
Denise Reagan, V St. Elmo Newton, Iii, Md, 436 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “030(1), a plaintiff must prove both that the health care provider “failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider” and that such failure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.”
Hill v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., 143 Wash. App. 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶24 Again, to recover damages for medical negligence, the plaintiff must establish that (1) the health care provider breached the accepted standard of care and (2) the breach was a proximate cause of the injury complained of.”
Keck v. Collins, 357 P.3d 1080 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 7.70.040; Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.040(1)(a) — 15 cases
Viktoriya I. Chervilova, Et Ano, V. Incyte Pathology, Inc., Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Rebekah Guitar, V. Olympia Orthopaedic Assocs., Pllc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Laffon Glymph, V. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Heidi Collins & Daryl Collins, V. Swedish Med. Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Stanley v. United States of Am. (W.D. Wash. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.040(1)(b) — 5 cases
Bryson Tiller, Et A, V Sound Women's Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
M.N. v. MultiCare Health Sys., Inc. (Wash. 2024).
M.N. v. MultiCare Health Sys., Inc. (Wash. 2024).
Jason Wilks v. Dep't of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Jennifer Sedgley, V. Peacehealth (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.040(2) — 21 cases
Berger v. Sonneland, 26 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2001). “[53] MEDICAL MALPRACTICE The elements of medical malpractice are set forth in RCW 7.70.040: (1) The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider at that time in the profession or class to…”
Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash. 2d 91 (Wash. 2001). “53 Medical Malpractice The elements of medical malpractice are set forth in RCW 7.70.040: “(1) The health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider at that time in the profession or class to…”
Diane Christian, et ux v. Antoine Tohmeh, MD, et ux, 366 P.3d 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 247 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hosp., 341 P.3d 261 (Wash. 2014).
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.