Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 70.124.060 (2026)
Liability of persons making reports
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person other than a person alleged to have committed the abuse or neglect participating in good faith in the making of a report pursuant to this chapter, or testifying as to alleged patient abuse or neglect in a judicial proceeding, is, in so doing, immune from any liability, civil or criminal, arising out of such reporting or testifying under any law of this state or its political subdivisions, and if such person is an employee of a state hospital it is an unfair practice under chapter 49.60 RCW for the employer to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against the employee for such reporting activity.
Notes:
Findings—Purpose—Severability—Conflict with federal requirements—1999 c 176: See notes following RCW 74.34.005.
Severability—1993 c 510: See note following RCW 49.60.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1991–1999 · leading case: Farnam v. Crista Ministries, 807 P.2d 830 (Wash. 1991).
Farnam v. Crista Ministries, 807 P.2d 830 (Wash. 1991). “RCW 70.124.060. Because Farnam's concerns focused on the removal of NG tubes, the Natural Death Act (NDA), RCW 70.”
Lins v. Child.'s Discovery Centers of Am., Inc., 976 P.2d 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “21 RCW 70.124.060. 22 RCW 19.30.190. 23 RCW 49.”
White v. State, 898 P.2d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “White also submitted a retaliation complaint to the Washington State Human Rights Commission (the Commission) under RCW 70.124.060. The Commission, however, dismissed the complaint because its jurisdiction only extended to discharged employees.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.124.060(1) — 1 case
White v. State, 898 P.2d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “White also submitted a retaliation complaint to the Washington State Human Rights Commission (the Commission) under RCW 70.124.060. The Commission, however, dismissed the complaint because its jurisdiction only extended to discharged employees.”
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.