Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050 (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 health care in a civil negligence case or arbitration involving the issue of the alleged breach of the duty to secure an informed consent by a patient or his or her representatives against a health care provider:

(a) That the health care provider failed to inform the patient of a material fact or facts relating to the treatment;

(b) That the patient consented to the treatment without being aware of or fully informed of such material fact or facts;

(c) That a reasonably prudent patient under similar circumstances would not have consented to the treatment if informed of such material fact or facts;

(d) That the treatment in question proximately caused injury to the patient.

(2) Under the provisions of this section a fact is defined as or considered to be a material fact, if a reasonably prudent person in the position of the patient or his or her representative would attach significance to it deciding whether or not to submit to the proposed treatment.

(3) Material facts under the provisions of this section which must be established by expert testimony shall be either:

(a) The nature and character of the treatment proposed and administered;

(b) The anticipated results of the treatment proposed and administered;

(d) The recognized serious possible risks, complications, and anticipated benefits involved in the treatment administered and in the recognized possible alternative forms of treatment, including nontreatment.

(4) If a recognized health care emergency exists and the patient does not have the capacity to give an informed consent and/or a person legally authorized to consent on behalf of the patient is not readily available, his or her consent to required treatment will be implied.

[ 2021 c 270 s 2; 2011 c 336 s 252; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—2021 c 270: See note following RCW 7.70.065.

Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56: See note following RCW 4.16.350.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 93 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Backlund v. Univ. of Washington, 975 P.2d 950 (Wash. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Backlund v. Univ. of Washington, 975 P.2d 950 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 26× “We are asked to apply Washington’s informed consent law for health care patients, RCW 7.70.050, in a case where the Backlunds allege Dr.”

Gomez v. Sauerwein, 331 P.3d 19 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 10× “* ¶1 This case asks whether Washington’s informed consent statute, RCW 7.70.050, applies when a health care provider misdiagnoses the patient’s condition.”

Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 12× “RCW 7.70.050 2 *569 sets forth the elements plaintiffs are required to prove in order to establish a breach of the informed consent doctrine.”

In Re the Welfare of Colyer, 660 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 6× “2d 919 (1979); RCW 7.70.050. Such information must include the possibility of alternative treatment or no treatment at all.”

Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 170 P.3d 1151 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 10× “RCW 7.70.050; Keogan v. Holy Family Hosp.”

Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 162 Wash. 2d 115 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 8× “RCW 7.70.050; Keogan v. Holy Family Hosp.”

Thomas P. Collins v. Juergens Chiropractic, Pllc, 467 P.3d 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “RCW 7.70.050(1). The lack of informed consent claim “is generally based on the policy judgment that patients have the right to make decisions about their own medical treatment.”

Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 3× “It enunciated the elements of a cause of action based on informed consent in RCW 7.70.050. 6 These elements are similar to those set *471 out in Miller v.”

In Re the Guardianship of Grant, 747 P.2d 445 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 4× “RCW 7.70.050. Moreover, a competent patient may ensure with a directive that life *553 sustaining treatment will be withheld or withdrawn, should he or she subsequently become incompetent.”

Robert Repin v. State of Washington & Washington State Univ., 392 P.3d 1174 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.70.050 recognizes a duty of a physician to inform a human patient of material facts relating to treatment, and the statute acknowledges a cause of action for informed consent.”

Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., 681 P.2d 1305 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 7× “4 RCW 7.70.050 provides: "(1) The following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from health care in a civil negligence case or arbitration involving the issue of the alleged breach of the duty to secure an informed consent by a patient or his…”

Flyte v. Summit View Clinic, 333 P.3d 566 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “Similarly, the physician is liable if the physician fails to disclose other courses of treatment, including no treatment at all, as options upon which the patient makes the ultimate choice.”

Show all 93 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(1) — 35 cases

Backlund v. Univ. of Washington, 975 P.2d 950 (Wash. 1999). “We are asked to apply Washington’s informed consent law for health care patients, RCW 7.70.050, in a case where the Backlunds allege Dr.”

Ruffer v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp., 784 P.2d 1288 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).

Housel v. James, 172 P.3d 712 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Housel v. James, 141 Wash. App. 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Gomez v. Sauerwein, 331 P.3d 19 (Wash. 2014). “* ¶1 This case asks whether Washington’s informed consent statute, RCW 7.70.050, applies when a health care provider misdiagnoses the patient’s condition.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(1)(a) — 13 cases

Thomas P. Collins v. Juergens Chiropractic, Pllc, 467 P.3d 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 7.70.050(1). The lack of informed consent claim “is generally based on the policy judgment that patients have the right to make decisions about their own medical treatment.”

Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.70.050 2 *569 sets forth the elements plaintiffs are required to prove in order to establish a breach of the informed consent doctrine.”

Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., 681 P.2d 1305 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “4 RCW 7.70.050 provides: "(1) The following shall be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from health care in a civil negligence case or arbitration involving the issue of the alleged breach of the duty to secure an informed consent by a patient or his…”

Crawford v. Wojnas, 754 P.2d 1302 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(1)(b) — 1 case

Wright v. Jeckle, 16 P.3d 1268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(1)(c) — 5 cases

Backlund v. Univ. of Washington, 975 P.2d 950 (Wash. 1999).

Lisa Barton v. Dr. Steven Sandifer, D.c. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Kasey Cahan, Appellant/cross-respondent V. Franciscan Health Sys., Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Lisa Dunakin & Michael Dunakin, Apps. v. Maher M. Anous, M.d., F.a.c.s., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(1)(d) — 5 cases

Benoy v. Simons, 831 P.2d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

Crawford v. Wojnas, 754 P.2d 1302 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(2) — 20 cases

Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1983). “It enunciated the elements of a cause of action based on informed consent in RCW 7.70.050. 6 These elements are similar to those set *471 out in Miller v.”

Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.70.050 2 *569 sets forth the elements plaintiffs are required to prove in order to establish a breach of the informed consent doctrine.”

Thomas v. Wilfac, Inc., 828 P.2d 597 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

Ruffer v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp., 784 P.2d 1288 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(3) — 11 cases

Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.70.050 2 *569 sets forth the elements plaintiffs are required to prove in order to establish a breach of the informed consent doctrine.”

Housel v. James, 172 P.3d 712 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Housel v. James, 141 Wash. App. 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(3)(a) — 1 case

Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.70.050 2 *569 sets forth the elements plaintiffs are required to prove in order to establish a breach of the informed consent doctrine.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(3)(b) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(3)(d) — 4 cases

In Re the Welfare of Colyer, 660 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1983). “2d 919 (1979); RCW 7.70.050. Such information must include the possibility of alternative treatment or no treatment at all.”

Ruffer v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp., 784 P.2d 1288 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).

Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.70.050 2 *569 sets forth the elements plaintiffs are required to prove in order to establish a breach of the informed consent doctrine.”

Flyte v. Summit View Clinic, 333 P.3d 566 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Similarly, the physician is liable if the physician fails to disclose other courses of treatment, including no treatment at all, as options upon which the patient makes the ultimate choice.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(4) — 6 cases

Michelle Dalen v. St. John Med. Ctr., 436 P.3d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 170 P.3d 1151 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 7.70.050; Keogan v. Holy Family Hosp.”

Orwick v. Fox, 828 P.2d 12 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 162 Wash. 2d 115 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 7.70.050; Keogan v. Holy Family Hosp.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(l)(a) — 3 cases

Gustav v. Seattle Urological Assocs., 954 P.2d 319 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

Est. of Lorraine P. Hensley v. Cmty. Health Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Phyllis Paetsch v. Spokane Dermatology Clinic PS (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(l)(b) — 2 cases

Wright v. Jeckle, 16 P.3d 1268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.70.050 2 *569 sets forth the elements plaintiffs are required to prove in order to establish a breach of the informed consent doctrine.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(l)(c) — 3 cases

Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.70.050 2 *569 sets forth the elements plaintiffs are required to prove in order to establish a breach of the informed consent doctrine.”

Degel v. Buty, 29 P.3d 768 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.050(l)(d) — 2 cases

Branom v. State, 974 P.2d 335 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Anaya Gomez v. Sauerwein (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.