Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.154 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If a person subject to evaluation under RCW 71.05.150 or 71.05.153 is located in an emergency room at the time of evaluation, the designated crisis responder conducting the evaluation shall take serious consideration of observations and opinions by an examining emergency room physician, *advanced registered nurse practitioner, or physician assistant in determining whether detention under this chapter is appropriate. The designated crisis responder must document his or her consultation with this professional, if the professional is available, or his or her review of the professional's written observations or opinions regarding whether detention of the person is appropriate.
[ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 14 s 12; (2017 3rd sp.s. c 14 s 11 expired April 1, 2018); 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 214; 2013 c 334 s 1.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The term "advanced registered nurse practitioner" was changed to "advanced practice registered nurse" by 2024 c 239 s 1, effective June 30, 2027.
Effective date—2017 3rd sp.s. c 14 ss 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17-21: See note following RCW 71.05.590.
Expiration date—2017 3rd sp.s. c 14 ss 8, 11, and 13: See note following RCW 71.05.590.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
If a person subject to evaluation under RCW 71.05.150 or 71.05.153 is located in an emergency room at the time of evaluation, the designated crisis responder conducting the evaluation shall take serious consideration of observations and opinions by an examining emergency room physician, advanced practice registered nurse, or physician assistant in determining whether detention under this chapter is appropriate. The designated crisis responder must document his or her consultation with this professional, if the professional is available, or his or her review of the professional's written observations or opinions regarding whether detention of the person is appropriate.
[ 2025 c 58 s 5146; 2017 3rd sp.s. c 14 s 12; (2017 3rd sp.s. c 14 s 11 expired April 1, 2018); 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 214; 2013 c 334 s 1.]
Notes:
Effective date—2025 c 58 ss 5058-5170: See note following RCW 7.68.030.
Explanatory note—2025 c 58: See note following RCW 1.16.050.
Effective date—2017 3rd sp.s. c 14 ss 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17-21: See note following RCW 71.05.590.
Expiration date—2017 3rd sp.s. c 14 ss 8, 11, and 13: See note following RCW 71.05.590.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: In Re The Det. Of: K.r., 381 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
In Re The Det. Of: K.r., 381 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “’s detention was improper because the Designated Mental Health Professional (DMHP) failed to consult an examining emergency room physician as required by RCW 71.05.154. Therefore, we reverse the superior court’s commitment order.”
In re C.A.C., 430 P.3d 276 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the DMHP had violated former RCW 71.05.154 (2013) 2 by not consulting with an emergency room physician before recommending detention.”
In re Det. of A.C., 533 P.3d 81 (Wash. 2023). “3d 158 (2016) (dismissing ITA petition because the designated mental health provider failed to consult with the examining emergency room physician as required under former RCW 71.05.154 (2013)). In such circumstances, no weighing of the merits of the ITA petition is appropriate.”
In Re The Det. Of J.s. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “’s subsequent Motion, which argued that the DCR had totally disregarded portions of RCW 71.05.154. The commissioner denied the Motion and heard testimony on the merits of three witnesses: J.”
In Re The Det. Of A.v. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “” The trial court concluded that the initial detention petition satisfied the requirements of RCW 71.05.154 and, thereafter, denied A.V.”
In Re The Det. Of: G.s.y. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “" The DMHP consulted with the physician assistant assigned to G.S.Y. at the hospital. Both parties agree no emergency room physician examined G.”
In Re The Det. Of C.a.c. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “154 (2013)2 by not consulting with an emergency room physician before recommending detention The triai court heard arguments on this motion and denied it, reasoning that former RCW 71.05.154 did not “create[] an affirmative obligation [tor a DiVii-IP] to seek out an emergency…”
State Of Washington, V. W. E. C. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “contends, and respondent Cascade Behavioral Health (Cascade) concedes, that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek dismissal of the petition for detention based on lack of compliance with a provision of the involuntary treatment act (ITA), RCW 71.05.154. We…”
Stevens Cnty. v. Stevens Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 71.05.154. 46 No. 37467-0-III Stevens County v.”
Pickens v. Virginia Mason Franciscan Health (W.D. Wash. 2022). “153; see also, RCW 71.05.154, RCW 71.05.150. This is exactly what 5 happened here.”
In Re The Det. Of E.i. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “contends, and respondent Fairfax Behavioral Health Hospital (Fairfax) concedes, her counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek dismissal of the petition for detention based on lack of compliance with a provision of the involuntary treatment act (ITA), RCW…”
State Of Washington, V. C.i. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “’s detention failed to consult an examining physician, as required by RCW 71.05.154. 195 Wn. App. at 847-48 . Division Two of this court agreed with K.”
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.