Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.71
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.030 (2026)

Actions by health care peer review body—Exclusive remedy

✓ 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 the limitation on damages under RCW 7.71.020 and P.L. 99-660 Sec. 411(a)(1) does not apply, this section shall provide the exclusive remedies in any lawsuit by a health care provider for any action taken by a professional peer review body of health care providers as defined in RCW 7.70.020.
(2) Remedies shall be limited to appropriate injunctive relief, and damages shall be allowed only for lost earnings directly attributable to the action taken by the professional peer review body, incurred between the date of such action and the date the action is functionally reversed by the professional peer review body.
(3) Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs shall be awarded if approved by the court under RCW 7.71.035.
(4) The statute of limitations for actions under this section shall be one year from the date of the action of the professional peer review body.
[ 2013 c 301 s 1; 2012 c 165 s 1; 1987 c 269 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Perry v. Rado, 230 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perry v. Rado, 230 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 17× “Perry's declaratory relief, due process, denial of good faith, fair dealing, and fiduciary breach claims under CR 12(b)(6) because common law claims were not among the exclusive remedies for hospital peer review cause of actions listed in RCW 7.71.030. Dr. Perry's *208 tortious…”
Cowell v. Good Samaritan Cmty. Health Care, 225 P.3d 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “Attorney Fees ¶62 Cowell argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees and costs to respondents for defending against Cowell’s claims for injunctive relief under RCW 7.71.030 and for damages under 42 U.S.”
Morgan v. PeaceHealth, Inc., 14 P.3d 773 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “; (2) the Washington Health Care Peer Act, RCW 7.71.030; (3) the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW Ch.”
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp., 269 P.3d 323 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 9× “Smigaj's claims under CR 12(c) and RCW 7.71.030, (3) dismissing her defamation action, and (4) awarding attorney fees to Memorial in the amount of $534,415.”
Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 165 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2008). “, RCW 7.71.030(1) (“[t]his section shall provide the exclusive remedy for any action taken by a professional peer review body of health care providers”); RCW 51.”
Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 196 P.3d 691 (Wash. 2008). “, RCW 7.71.030(1) ("[t]his section shall provide the exclusive remedy for any action taken by a professional peer review body of health care providers"); RCW 51.”
Morgan v. PeaceHealth, Inc., 101 Wash. App. 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “§§ 11101-11152 ; (2) RCW 7.71.030 (the Washington Health Care Peer Review Act); (3) the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.”
Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 298 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 7.71.030(1) defines a “peer review body of health care providers” by reference to RCW 7.”
Perry v. Rado, 155 Wash. App. 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 17× “Perry’s declaratory relief, due process, denial of good faith, fair dealing, and fiduciary breach claims under CR 12(b)(6) because common law claims were not among the exclusive remedies for hospital peer review cause of actions listed in RCW 7.71.030. Dr. Perry’s tortious…”
Naini v. King Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No 2 (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 67× “Exclusivity of Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.030 12 Defendants argue that Wash.”
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, 165 Wash. App. 837 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 9× “Smigaj’s claims under CR 12(c) and RCW 7.71.030, (3) dismissing her defamation action, and (4) awarding attorney fees to Memorial in the amount of $534,415.”
Bruce L. Davidson, M.d. v. Robb W. Glenny, M.d., Et Ano., 470 P.3d 549 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “250(1) address distinct situations, so we decline to rely on the court’s interpretation of the latter to interpret the former.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.030(1) — 10 cases
Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 165 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2008). “, RCW 7.71.030(1) (“[t]his section shall provide the exclusive remedy for any action taken by a professional peer review body of health care providers”); RCW 51.”
Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 196 P.3d 691 (Wash. 2008). “, RCW 7.71.030(1) ("[t]his section shall provide the exclusive remedy for any action taken by a professional peer review body of health care providers"); RCW 51.”
Cornu-Labat v. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 298 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 7.71.030(1) defines a “peer review body of health care providers” by reference to RCW 7.”
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp., 269 P.3d 323 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Smigaj's claims under CR 12(c) and RCW 7.71.030, (3) dismissing her defamation action, and (4) awarding attorney fees to Memorial in the amount of $534,415.”
Perry v. Rado, 230 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Perry's declaratory relief, due process, denial of good faith, fair dealing, and fiduciary breach claims under CR 12(b)(6) because common law claims were not among the exclusive remedies for hospital peer review cause of actions listed in RCW 7.71.030. Dr. Perry's *208 tortious…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.030(2) — 3 cases
Perry v. Rado, 230 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Perry's declaratory relief, due process, denial of good faith, fair dealing, and fiduciary breach claims under CR 12(b)(6) because common law claims were not among the exclusive remedies for hospital peer review cause of actions listed in RCW 7.71.030. Dr. Perry's *208 tortious…”
Perry v. Rado, 155 Wash. App. 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Perry’s declaratory relief, due process, denial of good faith, fair dealing, and fiduciary breach claims under CR 12(b)(6) because common law claims were not among the exclusive remedies for hospital peer review cause of actions listed in RCW 7.71.030. Dr. Perry’s tortious…”
Naini v. King Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No 2 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “Exclusivity of Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.030 12 Defendants argue that Wash.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.71.030(3) — 5 cases
Perry v. Rado, 230 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Perry's declaratory relief, due process, denial of good faith, fair dealing, and fiduciary breach claims under CR 12(b)(6) because common law claims were not among the exclusive remedies for hospital peer review cause of actions listed in RCW 7.71.030. Dr. Perry's *208 tortious…”
Cowell v. Good Samaritan Cmty. Health Care, 225 P.3d 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Attorney Fees ¶62 Cowell argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees and costs to respondents for defending against Cowell’s claims for injunctive relief under RCW 7.71.030 and for damages under 42 U.S.”
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp., 269 P.3d 323 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Smigaj's claims under CR 12(c) and RCW 7.71.030, (3) dismissing her defamation action, and (4) awarding attorney fees to Memorial in the amount of $534,415.”
Perry v. Rado, 155 Wash. App. 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Perry’s declaratory relief, due process, denial of good faith, fair dealing, and fiduciary breach claims under CR 12(b)(6) because common law claims were not among the exclusive remedies for hospital peer review cause of actions listed in RCW 7.71.030. Dr. Perry’s tortious…”
Smigaj v. Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, 165 Wash. App. 837 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Smigaj’s claims under CR 12(c) and RCW 7.71.030, (3) dismissing her defamation action, and (4) awarding attorney fees to Memorial in the amount of $534,415.”
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.