Wash. Rev. Code » Title 74 · Chapter 74.34
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 74.34.095 (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) The following information is confidential and not subject to disclosure, except as provided in this section:
(a) A report of abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect made under this chapter;
(b) The identity of the person making the report; and
(c) All files, reports, records, communications, and working papers used or developed in the investigation or provision of protective services.
(2) Information considered confidential may be disclosed only for a purpose consistent with this chapter or as authorized by chapter 18.20, 18.51, or 74.39A RCW, the long-term care ombuds programs under federal law or state law, chapter 43.190 RCW, or the office of the developmental disabilities ombuds program under chapter 43.382 RCW.
(3) A court or presiding officer in an administrative proceeding may order disclosure of confidential information only if the court, or presiding officer in an administrative proceeding, determines that disclosure is essential to the administration of justice and will not endanger the life or safety of the vulnerable adult or individual who made the report. The court or presiding officer in an administrative hearing may place restrictions on such disclosure as the court or presiding officer deems proper.
(4)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, upon a request for information regarding a specifically named vulnerable adult, the department may disclose only the following information:
(i) Whether or not a report was received;
(ii) The status of the report; and
(iii) The outcome of an investigation.
(b) The department may not disclose any information regarding a specifically named vulnerable adult if any of the following circumstances apply:
(i) The information concerns a vulnerable adult residing in or receiving services from a department licensed or certified facility or provider where an unannounced investigation in response to the report has not been initiated;
(ii) The requester is the alleged perpetrator;
(iii) The department has a reasonable belief that disclosure may compromise any investigation by a law enforcement agency, disciplinary authority, the department, or the department of children, youth, and families; or
(iv) The department has a reasonable belief that the information may endanger any person.
[ 2023 c 44 s 3; 2013 c 23 s 218; 2000 c 87 s 4; 1999 c 176 s 17.]

Notes:

Findings—Purpose—Severability—Conflict with federal requirements—1999 c 176: See notes following RCW 74.34.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2022 · leading case: Raven v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 306 P.3d 920 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Raven v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 306 P.3d 920 (Wash. 2013). “Mindful of the confidentiality provisions of RCW 74.34.095, only Ida’s first name, and the first names of her family members, is used here.”
Raven v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 273 P.3d 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “[3] Under the confidentiality provisions of RCW 74.34.095, we refer to Ida by her first name only.”
Raven v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 167 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Under the confidentiality provisions of RCW 74.34.095, we refer to Ida by her first name only.”
Murinko v. Strange (W.D. Wash. 2019). “) Documents containing information regarding the identity of persons making 17 reports regarding vulnerable adults, and all files, reports, records, communications, and working 18 papers used or developed in the investigation or provision of protective services is subject to 19…”
Munger v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2022). “APS shall have the option of redacting identifying 15 information of persons other than the protected person, who are named in the record, pending 16 notification that release of the record has been ordered by a court or consented to by the named 17 witnesses, residents,…”
Raven v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. 2013). “In addition, Raven was formerly known as Eileen Lemke-Maconi, and some of the testimony and exhibits contained in the record address her as such.”
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.