Wash. Rev. Code » Title 70 · Chapter 70.02

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.060

Discovery request or compulsory process

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Before service of a discovery request or compulsory process on a health care provider for health care information, an attorney shall provide advance notice to the health care provider and the patient or the patient's attorney involved through service of process or first-class mail, indicating the health care provider from whom the information is sought, what health care information is sought, and the date by which a protective order must be obtained to prevent the health care provider from complying. Such date shall give the patient and the health care provider adequate time to seek a protective order, but in no event be less than fourteen days since the date of service or delivery to the patient and the health care provider of the foregoing. Thereafter the request for discovery or compulsory process shall be served on the health care provider.
(2) Without the written consent of the patient, the health care provider may not disclose the health care information sought under subsection (1) of this section if the requestor has not complied with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section. In the absence of a protective order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction forbidding compliance, the health care provider shall disclose the information in accordance with this chapter. In the case of compliance, the request for discovery or compulsory process shall be made a part of the patient record.
(3) Production of health care information under this section, in and of itself, does not constitute a waiver of any privilege, objection, or defense existing under other law or rule of evidence or procedure.
[ 1991 c 335 s 205.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Berger v. Sonneland
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Berger v. Sonneland (2001) wash · cites it 2× “030 and RCW 70.02.060 indicates the Act was not intended to be the sole remedy.”
Berger v. Sonneland (2001) wash · cites it 2× “030 and RCW 70.02.060 indicates the Act was not intended to be the sole remedy.”
State v. Hyder (2011) washctapp · cites it 5× “The court observed that RCW 70.02.060 "plainly contemplates that the Act applies when disclosure is sought during or in preparation for judicial proceedings.”
Wynn v. Earin (2005) washctapp · cites it 13× “RCW 70.02.060. Before the case went to the jury, however, the court changed its mind and dismissed these claims altogether.”
Wynn v. Earin (2005) washctapp · cites it 13× “RCW 70.02.060. Before the case went to the jury, however, the court changed its mind and dismissed these claims altogether.”
Jeckle v. Crotty (2004) washctapp “RCW 70.02.060(1). The sole remedy provided in the UHCIA is an action against a health care provider or facility for actual, but not consequential, damages.”
Jeckle v. Crotty (2004) washctapp “RCW 70.02.060(1). The sole remedy provided in the UHCIA is an action against a health care provider or facility for actual, but not consequential, damages.”
State v. Hyder (2011) washctapp · cites it 3× “The court observed that RCW 70.02.060 “plainly contemplates that the Act applies when disclosure is sought during or in preparation for judicial proceedings.”
Wright v. Jeckle (2004) washctapp “Our conclusion also renders it unnecessary for us to discuss whether the court violated RCW 70.02.060, which grants 14 days to an affected patient to seek a protective order.”
Wright v. Jeckle (2004) washctapp “Our conclusion renders it unnecessary to discuss the plaintiffs’ argument that the information disclosed is merely directory information that is exempted from the disclosure prohibition by the provisions of RCW 70.”
Disability Rights Washington v. Meneses (2024) wawd · cites it 6× “The order additionally noted that there was “no evidence that Plaintiff Disability Rights 19 Washington has complied with RCW 70.02.060.” Id. That order held that to the extent they 20 sought health information of Rainier School residents, the disputed interrogatories and…”
Angulo v. Providence Health & Services Washington (2023) wawd · cites it 4× “510; RCW 70.02.060(1). Relevant to the issues in this case, HIPAA authorizes the 3 disclosure of PHI without a patient’s consent in response to a court order, see 45 C.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.060(1) — 14 cases
State v. Hyder (2011) washctapp “The court observed that RCW 70.02.060 "plainly contemplates that the Act applies when disclosure is sought during or in preparation for judicial proceedings.”
Jeckle v. Crotty (2004) washctapp “RCW 70.02.060(1). The sole remedy provided in the UHCIA is an action against a health care provider or facility for actual, but not consequential, damages.”
Jeckle v. Crotty (2004) washctapp “RCW 70.02.060(1). The sole remedy provided in the UHCIA is an action against a health care provider or facility for actual, but not consequential, damages.”
Wynn v. Earin (2005) washctapp “RCW 70.02.060. Before the case went to the jury, however, the court changed its mind and dismissed these claims altogether.”
Wynn v. Earin (2005) washctapp “RCW 70.02.060. Before the case went to the jury, however, the court changed its mind and dismissed these claims altogether.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.060(2) — 5 cases
State v. Hyder (2011) washctapp “The court observed that RCW 70.02.060 "plainly contemplates that the Act applies when disclosure is sought during or in preparation for judicial proceedings.”
State v. Hyder (2011) washctapp “The court observed that RCW 70.02.060 “plainly contemplates that the Act applies when disclosure is sought during or in preparation for judicial proceedings.”
Wynn v. Earin (2005) washctapp “RCW 70.02.060. Before the case went to the jury, however, the court changed its mind and dismissed these claims altogether.”
Wynn v. Earin (2005) washctapp “RCW 70.02.060. Before the case went to the jury, however, the court changed its mind and dismissed these claims altogether.”
Roberts v. Khounphixay (2020) wawd
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.02.060(3) — 2 cases
Berger v. Sonneland (2001) wash “030 and RCW 70.02.060 indicates the Act was not intended to be the sole remedy.”
Berger v. Sonneland (2001) wash “030 and RCW 70.02.060 indicates the Act was not intended to be the sole remedy.”
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.