Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.020 (2026)
Federal law applicable in Washington state
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Pursuant to P.L. 99-660 Sec. 411(c)(2), Title IV of that act shall apply in Washington state as of July 26, 1987.
[ 1987 c 269 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp., 269 P.3d 323 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp., 269 P.3d 323 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶ 3 We conclude that RCW 7.71.020, the HCQIA, applies here because the professional review action related directly to Dr.”
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, 165 Wash. App. 837 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶3 We conclude that RCW 7.71.020, the HCQIA, applies here because the professional review action related directly to Dr.”
Morgan v. PeaceHealth, Inc., 14 P.3d 773 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “See RCW 7.71.020. Washington law further provides express and exclusive remedy for professional review actions based on matters other than competence or professional conduct: (1) This section shall provide the exclusive remedy for any action taken by a professional peer review…”
Cowell v. Good Samaritan Cmty. Health Care, 225 P.3d 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See RCW 7.71.020. Morgan, 101 Wn. App. at 762 (quoting Mathews, 87 F.”
Morgan v. PeaceHealth, Inc., 101 Wash. App. 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “See RCW 7.71.020. Washington law further provides express and exclusive remedy for professional review actions based on matters other than competence or professional conduct: (1) This section shall provide the exclusive remedy for any action taken by a professional peer review…”
Perry v. Rado, 230 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The review action must be taken: (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care, (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter, (3) after adequate notice and hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved…”
Naini v. King Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No 2 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “5 § 11111(a); Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.020 . Under that layer of protection, persons who participate 6 in a “professional review action .”
Perry v. Rado, 155 Wash. App. 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The review action must be taken (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance of quality health care, (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter, (3) after adequate notice and hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved or…”
Eric R. Shibley, Md, / X-res. v. King Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist., / X-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 7.71.020. No. 72855-5-1/8 proposed action stating its reasons, notifying the physician that he may request a hearing, and informing him of his rights.”
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.