Wash. Rev. Code » Title 70 · Chapter 70.14
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.120 (2026)

✓ 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 participating agency shall comply with a determination of the committee under RCW 70.14.110 unless:
(a) The determination conflicts with an applicable federal statute or regulation, or applicable state statute; or
(b) Reimbursement is provided under an agency policy regarding experimental or investigational treatment, services under a clinical investigation approved by an institutional review board, or health technologies that have a humanitarian device exemption from the federal food and drug administration.
(2) For a health technology not selected for review under RCW 70.14.100, a participating agency may use its existing statutory and administrative authority to make coverage and reimbursement determinations. Such determinations shall be shared among agencies, with a goal of maximizing each agency's understanding of the basis for the other's decisions and providing opportunities for agency collaboration.
(3) A health technology not included as a covered benefit under a state purchased health care program pursuant to a determination of the health technology clinical committee under RCW 70.14.110, or for which a condition of coverage established by the committee is not met, shall not be subject to a determination in the case of an individual patient as to whether it is medically necessary, or proper and necessary treatment.
(4) Nothing in chapter 307, Laws of 2006 diminishes an individual's right under existing law to appeal an action or decision of a participating agency regarding a state purchased health care program. Appeals shall be governed by state and federal law applicable to participating agency decisions.
[ 2006 c 307 s 5.]

Notes:

Captions not law—Conflict with federal requirements—2006 c 307: See notes following RCW 70.14.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2012–2018 · leading case: Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 60× “¶32 Joy contends that L&I raised these issues for the first time in its response brief by arguing that application of RCW 70.14.120 to her claim did not affect substantive or vested rights.”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 20× “RCW 70.14.120(1). ¶ 5 Two provisions of the HTA concern review.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “RCW 70.14.120. “A health technology not included as a covered benefit .”
Murray v. State, 418 P.3d 803 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “, chapter 296-20 WAC, and regulations therein regarding medical coverage decisions - WAC 296-20-02700 through 296-20-02850), the IIA statutes providing for appeals (ch.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.120(1) — 2 cases
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶32 Joy contends that L&I raised these issues for the first time in its response brief by arguing that application of RCW 70.14.120 to her claim did not affect substantive or vested rights.”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.120(1). ¶ 5 Two provisions of the HTA concern review.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.120(2) — 1 case
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶32 Joy contends that L&I raised these issues for the first time in its response brief by arguing that application of RCW 70.14.120 to her claim did not affect substantive or vested rights.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.120(3) — 4 cases
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶32 Joy contends that L&I raised these issues for the first time in its response brief by arguing that application of RCW 70.14.120 to her claim did not affect substantive or vested rights.”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.120(1). ¶ 5 Two provisions of the HTA concern review.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 70.14.120. “A health technology not included as a covered benefit .”
Murray v. State, 418 P.3d 803 (Wash. 2018). “, chapter 296-20 WAC, and regulations therein regarding medical coverage decisions - WAC 296-20-02700 through 296-20-02850), the IIA statutes providing for appeals (ch.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.14.120(4) — 3 cases
Joy v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 285 P.3d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶32 Joy contends that L&I raised these issues for the first time in its response brief by arguing that application of RCW 70.14.120 to her claim did not affect substantive or vested rights.”
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 430 P.3d 645 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 70.14.120(1). ¶ 5 Two provisions of the HTA concern review.”
Michael E. Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 70.14.120. “A health technology not included as a covered benefit .”
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.