Wash. Rev. Code » Title 70 · Chapter 70.02

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.005

Findings

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that:
(1) Health care information is personal and sensitive information that if improperly used or released may do significant harm to a patient's interests in privacy, health care, or other interests.
(2) Patients need access to their own health care information as a matter of fairness to enable them to make informed decisions about their health care and correct inaccurate or incomplete information about themselves.
(3) In order to retain the full trust and confidence of patients, health care providers have an interest in assuring that health care information is not improperly disclosed and in having clear and certain rules for the disclosure of health care information.
(4) Persons other than health care providers obtain, use, and disclose health record information in many different contexts and for many different purposes. It is the public policy of this state that a patient's interest in the proper use and disclosure of the patient's health care information survives even when the information is held by persons other than health care providers.
(5) The movement of patients and their health care information across state lines, access to and exchange of health care information from automated data banks, and the emergence of multistate health care providers creates a compelling need for uniform law, rules, and procedures governing the use and disclosure of health care information.
[ 1991 c 335 s 101.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr. (2018) wash · cites it 8× “RCW 70.02.005. Thus, unlike the PRA, the UHCIA carries a general presumption of nondisclosure without a patient's written authorization.”
State v. Scherf (2018) wash · cites it 4× “¶ 7 Scherf argues that the medical records were effectively held by DOC because they were in Scherf's cell and, therefore, DOC had a duty to protect his privacy interest under RCW 70.02.005. The State argues that the Act does not limit disclosure by the patient of his personal…”
Planned Parenthood v. Bloedow (2015) washctapp · cites it 4× “” RCW 70.02.005(1). The legislature also finds that in order to “retain the full trust and confidence of patients, health care providers have an interest in assuring that health care information is not improperly disclosed and in having clear and certain rules for the disclosure…”
Berger v. Sonneland (2001) wash “[57] RCW 70.02.005. [58] RCW 70.02.020. [59] RCW 70.”
Berger v. Sonneland (2001) wash “RCW 70.02.005(1). RCW 70.02.020. 59 RCW 70.”
Koenig v. Thurston County (2012) wash · cites it 2× “” RCW 70.02.005(1) (emphasis added). Even if health care information is held by a public agency (such as a prosecutor’s office), the patient does not lose his or her privacy interest in the medical information therein.”
Wash. Fed'n of State Emps., Council 28 v. State (2023) wash · cites it 3× “But the Court of Appeals relied on RCW 70.02.005(1), which expressly finds that “‘[h]ealth care information is personal and sensitive information that if improperly used or released may do significant harm’” to patients and health care providers, and under RCW 70.”
Murphy v. State (2003) washctapp · cites it 2× “Murphy argues that RCW 70.02.005(4) imposes a duty on the Board.”
Murphy v. State (2003) washctapp · cites it 2× “Murphy argues that RCW 70.02.005(4) imposes a duty on the Board.”
Doe P v. Thurston County (2017) washctapp · cites it 3× “at 611 (quoting RCW 70.02.005(1)); RCW 70.02.005(4) (emphasis added).”
Wynn v. Earin (2008) wash “RCW 70.02.005. These findings show the importance of the substantive rights that patients and health care providers have under the Health Care Information Act.”
Wynn v. Earin (2008) wash “RCW 70.02.005. These findings show the importance of the substantive rights that patients and health care providers have under the Health Care Information Act.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.005(1) — 15 cases
John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr. (2018) wash “RCW 70.02.005. Thus, unlike the PRA, the UHCIA carries a general presumption of nondisclosure without a patient's written authorization.”
State v. Scherf (2018) wash “¶ 7 Scherf argues that the medical records were effectively held by DOC because they were in Scherf's cell and, therefore, DOC had a duty to protect his privacy interest under RCW 70.02.005. The State argues that the Act does not limit disclosure by the patient of his personal…”
Berger v. Sonneland (2001) wash “RCW 70.02.005(1). RCW 70.02.020. 59 RCW 70.”
Planned Parenthood v. Bloedow (2015) washctapp “” RCW 70.02.005(1). The legislature also finds that in order to “retain the full trust and confidence of patients, health care providers have an interest in assuring that health care information is not improperly disclosed and in having clear and certain rules for the disclosure…”
Wash. Fed'n of State Emps., Council 28 v. State (2023) wash “But the Court of Appeals relied on RCW 70.02.005(1), which expressly finds that “‘[h]ealth care information is personal and sensitive information that if improperly used or released may do significant harm’” to patients and health care providers, and under RCW 70.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.005(2) — 2 cases
Neel v. Luther Child Center (1999) washctapp
Jeffrey R. McKee v. Department of Corrections (2021) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.005(3) — 3 cases
Planned Parenthood v. Bloedow (2015) washctapp “” RCW 70.02.005(1). The legislature also finds that in order to “retain the full trust and confidence of patients, health care providers have an interest in assuring that health care information is not improperly disclosed and in having clear and certain rules for the disclosure…”
Wash. Fed'n of State Emps., Council 28 v. State (2023) wash “But the Court of Appeals relied on RCW 70.02.005(1), which expressly finds that “‘[h]ealth care information is personal and sensitive information that if improperly used or released may do significant harm’” to patients and health care providers, and under RCW 70.”
Jonathan Bloedow v. Planned Parenthood Of The Great Northwest (2015) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.005(4) — 8 cases
State v. Scherf (2018) wash “¶ 7 Scherf argues that the medical records were effectively held by DOC because they were in Scherf's cell and, therefore, DOC had a duty to protect his privacy interest under RCW 70.02.005. The State argues that the Act does not limit disclosure by the patient of his personal…”
John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr. (2018) wash “RCW 70.02.005. Thus, unlike the PRA, the UHCIA carries a general presumption of nondisclosure without a patient's written authorization.”
Murphy v. State (2003) washctapp “Murphy argues that RCW 70.02.005(4) imposes a duty on the Board.”
Murphy v. State (2003) washctapp “Murphy argues that RCW 70.02.005(4) imposes a duty on the Board.”
Doe P v. Thurston County (2017) washctapp “at 611 (quoting RCW 70.02.005(1)); RCW 70.02.005(4) (emphasis added).”
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.