Wash. Rev. Code » Title 70 · Chapter 70.02
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.020 (2026)

Disclosure by health care provider

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as authorized elsewhere in this chapter, a health care provider, an individual who assists a health care provider in the delivery of health care, or an agent and employee of a health care provider may not disclose health care information about a patient to any other person without the patient's written authorization. A disclosure made under a patient's written authorization must conform to the authorization.
(2) A patient has a right to receive an accounting of disclosures of health care information made by a health care provider or a health care facility in the six years before the date on which the accounting is requested, except for disclosures:
(a) To carry out treatment, payment, and health care operations;
(b) To the patient of health care information about him or her;
(c) Incident to a use or disclosure that is otherwise permitted or required;
(d) Pursuant to an authorization where the patient authorized the disclosure of health care information about himself or herself;
(e) Of directory information;
(f) To persons involved in the patient's care;
(g) For national security or intelligence purposes if an accounting of disclosures is not permitted by law;
(h) To correctional institutions or law enforcement officials if an accounting of disclosures is not permitted by law; and
(i) Of a limited data set that excludes direct identifiers of the patient or of relatives, employers, or household members of the patient.
[ 2014 c 220 s 5; 2013 c 200 s 2; 2005 c 468 s 2; 1993 c 448 s 2; 1991 c 335 s 201.]

Notes:

Effective date—2014 c 220: See note following RCW 70.02.290.
Effective date—2013 c 200: See note following RCW 70.02.010.
Effective date—1993 c 448: See note following RCW 70.02.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr., 410 P.3d 1156 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr., 410 P.3d 1156 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 6× “RCW 70.02.020 ("[A] health care provider, an individual who assists a health care provider in the delivery of health care, or an agent and employee of a health care provider may not disclose health care information about a patient to any other person without the patient's…”
John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr., 391 P.3d 496 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “” 34 Instead, the Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting RCW 70.02.020 note only two re *621 quirements for “health care information”: patient iden-tifiability and information about patient health care.”
Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep't of Corr., 115 P.3d 316 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 4× “312 and RCW 70.02.020. ¶10 On July 30 PLN appealed to DOC to reverse its June 20 decision.”
Doe P v. Thurston Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “020(1) applies only to ‘a health care provider, an individual who assists a health care provider in the delivery of health care, or an agent and employee of a health care *297 provider,’ ” the PRA’s UHCIA exemption “incorporates RCW 70.02.020 into the PRA and thus restricts…”
State v. Scherf, 429 P.3d 776 (Wash. 2018). “A disclosure made under a patient's written authorization must conform to the authorization RCW 70.02.020(1). The Act does not limit disclosure by the patient of his own health care information.”
King v. Riveland, 886 P.2d 160 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “RCW 70.02.020. In addition, "[a] disclosure made under a patient’s written authorization must conform to the authorization.”
Berger v. Sonneland, 26 P.3d 257 (Wash. 2001). “[58] RCW 70.02.020. [59] RCW 70.02.170 (emphasis added).”
Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash. 2d 91 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 70.02.020. 59 RCW 70.02.170 (emphasis added).”
Wright v. Jeckle, 90 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Jeckle objected to the plaintiffs' proposed notice plan, contending it violated RCW 70.02.020 of the Act. Under RCW 70.02.”
Murphy v. State, 62 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “" RCW 70.02.020. The parties agree that the Board is none of these.”
Murphy v. State, 115 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” RCW 70.02.020. The parties agree that the Board is none of these.”
Wright v. Jeckle, 121 Wash. App. 624 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Jeckle objected to the plaintiffs’ proposed notice plan, contending it violated RCW 70.02.020 of the Act. Under RCW 70.02.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.020(1) — 13 cases
John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr., 410 P.3d 1156 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.02.020 ("[A] health care provider, an individual who assists a health care provider in the delivery of health care, or an agent and employee of a health care provider may not disclose health care information about a patient to any other person without the patient's…”
John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr., 391 P.3d 496 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “” 34 Instead, the Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting RCW 70.02.020 note only two re *621 quirements for “health care information”: patient iden-tifiability and information about patient health care.”
State v. Scherf, 429 P.3d 776 (Wash. 2018). “A disclosure made under a patient's written authorization must conform to the authorization RCW 70.02.020(1). The Act does not limit disclosure by the patient of his own health care information.”
Doe P v. Thurston Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “020(1) applies only to ‘a health care provider, an individual who assists a health care provider in the delivery of health care, or an agent and employee of a health care *297 provider,’ ” the PRA’s UHCIA exemption “incorporates RCW 70.02.020 into the PRA and thus restricts…”
Hermanson v. Multicare Health Sys., Inc., 475 P.3d 484 (Wash. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.020(17) — 1 case
John Doe 1 v. Washington State Dep't of Corr. (E.D. Wash. 2021).
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.