Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.010 (2025)
Legislative finding
✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds the assurance of quality and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of health care can be assisted through the review of health care by health care providers. It also recognizes that some peer review decisions may be based on factors other than competence or professional conduct. Although it finds that peer review decisions based on matters unrelated to quality and utilization review need redress, it concludes that it is necessary to balance carefully the rights of the consuming public who benefit by peer review with the rights of those who are occasionally hurt by peer review decisions based on matters other than competence or professional conduct.
The legislature intends to foreclose federal antitrust actions to the extent Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), allows and to permit only those actions in RCW 7.71.020 and 7.71.030.
[ 1987 c 269 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2012–2013 · leading case: Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 298 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2013).
Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 298 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2013). “The requested documents are exempt from disclosure only if they fall under one of the specific, narrowly construed exemptions.”
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp., 269 P.3d 323 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “020, [2] the legislature incorporated HCQIA (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 11101-11152 ). Under RCW 7.”
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, 165 Wash. App. 837 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “020, 2 the legislature incorporated HCQIA (codified as 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11152 ). Under RCW 7.71.”
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.