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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.080 (2026)

Evidence of compensation from other source

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any party may present evidence to the trier of fact that the plaintiff has already been compensated for the injury complained of from any source except the assets of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's representative, or the plaintiff's immediate family. In the event such evidence is admitted, the plaintiff may present evidence of an obligation to repay such compensation and evidence of any amount paid by the plaintiff, or his or her representative or immediate family, to secure the right to the compensation. Compensation as used in this section shall mean payment of money or other property to or on behalf of the plaintiff, rendering of services to the plaintiff free of charge to the plaintiff, or indemnification of expenses incurred by or on behalf of the plaintiff. Notwithstanding this section, evidence of compensation by a defendant health care provider may be offered only by that provider.
[ 2006 c 8 s 315; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56 s 13.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—Part headings and subheadings not law—Severability—2006 c 8: See notes following RCW 5.64.010.
Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56: See note following RCW 4.16.350.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Diaz v. State, 285 P.3d 873 (Wash. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Diaz v. State, 285 P.3d 873 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 33× “Diaz contends that the trial court misapplied RCW 7.70.080, a medical malpractice statute, in ruling the evidence admissible.”
Adcox v. Child.'s Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 864 P.2d 921 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 8× “In the context of health care injuries, the admissibility of this type of evidence is controlled by RCW 7.70.080, which provides as follows: Evidence of compensation from other source.”
Mahler v. Szucs, 957 P.2d 632 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 7.70.080. We reject the notion that subrogation principles trump the collateral source rule.”
Diaz v. State, 251 P.3d 249 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “The question presented is whether RCW 7.70.080 permits the introduction of evidence of, and instruction of the jury on, a settlement between the plaintiff and a codefendant who is no longer a party.”
Workman v. Chinchinian, 807 F. Supp. 634 (E.D. Wash. 1992). · cites it 3× “Washington’s collateral source statute, RCW 7.70.080, differs from the Idaho statute in that it allows *641 evidence of collateral compensation to be presented as evidence to the trier of fact rather than to the court.”
Haskins v. Multicare Health Sys., 347 P.3d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 19× “The Trial ¶12 In a motion in limine, Haskins argued that evidence of collateral source payments should not be admitted because RCW 7.70.080 is unconstitutional. The trial court admitted evidence of past compensation but excluded evidence of future collateral source payments.”
Horn v. Moberg, 844 P.2d 452 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE The trial court ruled that $66,000 received by the Horns from a construction materials policy of fire insurance purchased by them was a payment from a collateral source which would not be deducted from the jury award to the Horns in the legal…”
Diaz v. State, Univ. of Washington, 251 P.3d 249 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “The question presented is whether RCW 7.70.080 permits the introduction of evidence of, and instruction of the jury on, a settlement between the plaintiff and a codefendant who is no longer a party.”
Joshua Bros. Et Ano., V. Orm Bellevue Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 8× “We reverse and remand because, although Zhong does not show that RCW 7.70.080 is unconstitutional, we agree that the court erred by dismissing her claims at this stage of the judicial process.”
Horn v. Moberg, 844 P.2d 452 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “The Collateral Source Rule The trial court ruled that $66,000 received by the Homs from a construction materials policy of fire insurance purchased by them was a payment from a collateral source which would not be deducted from the jury award to the Homs in the legal malpractice…”
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.