Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.060 (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) If a patient who has capacity to make health a care [a health care] decision, or his or her representative if he or she does not have the capacity to make a health care decision, signs a consent form which sets forth the following, the signed consent form shall constitute prima facie evidence that the patient gave his or her informed consent to the treatment administered and the patient has the burden of rebutting this by a preponderance of the evidence:
(a) A description, in language the patient could reasonably be expected to understand, of:
(i) The nature and character of the proposed treatment;
(ii) The anticipated results of the proposed treatment;
(iii) The recognized possible alternative forms of treatment; and
(iv) The recognized serious possible risks, complications, and anticipated benefits involved in the treatment and in the recognized possible alternative forms of treatment, including nontreatment;
(b) Or as an alternative, a statement that the patient elects not to be informed of the elements set forth in (a) of this subsection.
(2) If a patient who has capacity to make a health care decision, or his or her representative if he or she does not have the capacity to make a health care decision, signs an acknowledgment of shared decision making as described in this section, such acknowledgment shall constitute prima facie evidence that the patient gave his or her informed consent to the treatment administered and the patient has the burden of rebutting this by clear and convincing evidence. An acknowledgment of shared decision making shall include:
(a) A statement that the patient, or his or her representative, and the health care provider have engaged in shared decision making as an alternative means of meeting the informed consent requirements set forth by laws, accreditation standards, and other mandates;
(b) A brief description of the services that the patient and provider jointly have agreed will be furnished;
(c) A brief description of the patient decision aid or aids that have been used by the patient and provider to address the needs for (i) high quality, up-to-date information about the condition, including risk and benefits of available options and, if appropriate, a discussion of the limits of scientific knowledge about outcomes; (ii) values clarification to help patients sort out their values and preferences; and (iii) guidance or coaching in deliberation, designed to improve the patient's involvement in the decision process;
(d) A statement that the patient or his or her representative understands: The risk or seriousness of the disease or condition to be prevented or treated; the available treatment alternatives, including nontreatment; and the risks, benefits, and uncertainties of the treatment alternatives, including nontreatment; and
(e) A statement certifying that the patient or his or her representative has had the opportunity to ask the provider questions, and to have any questions answered to the patient's satisfaction, and indicating the patient's intent to receive the identified services.
(3) As used in this section, "shared decision making" means a process in which the physician or other health care practitioner discusses with the patient or his or her representative the information specified in subsection (2) of this section with the use of a patient decision aid and the patient shares with the provider such relevant personal information as might make one treatment or side effect more or less tolerable than others.
(4)(a) As used in this section, "patient decision aid" means a written, audiovisual, or online tool that provides a balanced presentation of the condition and treatment options, benefits, and harms, including, if appropriate, a discussion of the limits of scientific knowledge about outcomes, for any medical condition or procedure, including abortion as defined in RCW 9.02.170 and:
(i)(A) That is certified by one or more national certifying organizations recognized by the medical director of the health care authority; or
(B) That has been evaluated based on the international patient decision aid standards by an organization located in the United States or Canada and has a current overall score satisfactory to the medical director of the health care authority; or
(ii) That, if a current evaluation is not available from an organization located in the United States or Canada, the medical director of the health care authority has independently assessed and certified based on the international patient decision aid standards.
(b) The health care authority may charge a fee to the certification applicant to defray the costs of the assessment and certification under this subsection.
(5) Failure to use a form or to engage in shared decision making, with or without the use of a patient decision aid, shall not be admissible as evidence of failure to obtain informed consent. There shall be no liability, civil or otherwise, resulting from a health care provider choosing either the signed consent form set forth in subsection (1)(a) of this section or the signed acknowledgment of shared decision making as set forth in subsection (2) of this section.
Notes:
Effective date—2021 c 270: See note following RCW 7.70.065.
Subheadings not law—2007 c 259: "Subheadings used in this act are not any part of the law." [ 2007 c 259 s 71.]
Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56: See note following RCW 4.16.350.
Minors
access to personal records: RCW 42.48.020.
liability of provider: RCW 26.09.310.
mental health treatment: Chapter 71.34 RCW.
sexually transmitted diseases: RCW 70.24.110.
Records, rights: RCW 70.02.130.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).
Brown v. Dahl, 705 P.2d 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 7.70.060. 3 The doctrine of informed consent refers to the requirement that a physician, before obtaining the consent of his or her patient to treatment, inform the patient of *570 the treatment's attendant risks.”
Gomez v. Sauerwein, 331 P.3d 19 (Wash. 2014). “Concerns about double damages may be well taken, but I am certain that our trial courts are capable of crafting judgments that avoid such windfalls.”
Morinaga v. Vue, 935 P.2d 637 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 7.70.060. Ms. Morinaga presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of consent.”
Housel v. James, 172 P.3d 712 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 7.70.060. The consent form disclosed the potential risks and complications of the surgery, as well as the alternative of nontreatment.”
Housel v. James, 141 Wash. App. 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 7.70.060. The consent form disclosed the potential risks and complications of the surgery, as well as the alternative of nontreatment.”
Vasquez v. Markin, 731 P.2d 510 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “Vasquez of the results of her lab tests. However, there was testimony that Mrs.”
Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc., 681 P.2d 1305 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “Adams had the burden of rebutting by a preponderance of the evidence, RCW 7.70.060, the trial court specifically found that such evidence in the face of the other testimony was insufficient to show that these particular risks and other factors were explained.”
Krystina Carson, V. Matthew Ashbach, M.d. Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “Carson appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in (1) issuing a jury instruction based on RCW 7.70.060(5), (2) dismissing the corporate negligence claim against WWMG, and (3) empaneling a Kent jury for the Seattle designated case.”
Diaz v. State, 251 P.3d 249 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We note that neither this case nor Adcox involved apportionment of liability under RCW 7.70.060. The rule in RCW 7.70.080 might play out differently under a case involving apportionment.”
Joumana B. Al Hayek & Nicholas C. Phillips v. Kathryn Miles, M.D., 562 P.3d 1270 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “7 RCW 7.70.060 provides: (1) If a patient who has capacity to make health a care [a health care] decision, or his or her representative if he or she does not have the capacity to make a health care decision, signs a consent form which sets forth the following, the signed consent…”
Gabriella Kertesz, V. Bob Ferguson (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “I On May 24, 2023, Kertész sued Ferguson alleging failure to enforce RCW 7.70.060 which provides for consent form contents related to actions for injuries resulting from health care.”
Gabrielle Nguyen-aluskar, App. v. The Lasik Vision Inst., Llc, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 7.70.060(1 )(a). Nguyen-Aluskar does not allege that the substance of the forms was statutorily deficient.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.060(1) — 2 cases
Swanson v. United States (E.D. Wash. 2024).
Joumana B. Al Hayek & Nicholas C. Phillips v. Kathryn Miles, M.D., 562 P.3d 1270 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “7 RCW 7.70.060 provides: (1) If a patient who has capacity to make health a care [a health care] decision, or his or her representative if he or she does not have the capacity to make a health care decision, signs a consent form which sets forth the following, the signed consent…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.060(1)(a) — 1 case
Joumana B. Al Hayek & Nicholas C. Phillips v. Kathryn Miles, M.D., 562 P.3d 1270 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “7 RCW 7.70.060 provides: (1) If a patient who has capacity to make health a care [a health care] decision, or his or her representative if he or she does not have the capacity to make a health care decision, signs a consent form which sets forth the following, the signed consent…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.060(5) — 2 cases
Krystina Carson, V. Matthew Ashbach, M.d. Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “Carson appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in (1) issuing a jury instruction based on RCW 7.70.060(5), (2) dismissing the corporate negligence claim against WWMG, and (3) empaneling a Kent jury for the Seattle designated case.”
David Maytash v. Daniel J. Garnett, M.d. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
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.