This bill adds a new section to chapter 4.24 RCW that makes void and unenforceable any agreement provision between a health care provider and a patient that bars disclosure or discussion of any act, error, or omission by the provider, or the existence of a settlement, that the patient reasonably believes to constitute medical malpractice, tort, or crime under Washington, federal, or common law. The prohibition applies to disclosures about care on or off a provider’s premises and to confidentiality or nondisparagement clauses in any agreement related to health care or to payment in exchange for release of a legal claim. The new section does not prohibit enforcing a provision that limits disclosure of the settlement amount, nor does it bar protection of confidential information irrelevant to an allegation of malpractice, tort, or crime. The change creates a civil remedy (not a new criminal offense) for violations occurring after the law’s effective date: a health care provider who violates the section is liable in a civil action for actual damages or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. It is a violation for a provider to request or require such a prohibited provision or to attempt to enforce one by lawsuit, threats, or other attempts to influence compliance. Agreements between Washington-resident patients and providers are governed by Washington law, and the section must be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purpose. The new section is retroactive only to the limited extent of invalidating preexisting nondisclosure or nondisparagement provisions; this retroactivity allows recovery of damages to prevent enforcement of those provisions but does not allow recovery based solely on their prior existence. Providers who previously entered into prohibited agreements must notify affected patients, the patients’ counsel of record if any, and any other bound persons in writing within one year of the section’s effective date. The text does not state the effective date of the section, nor does it specify who may bring the civil cause of action beyond stating that a violating provider is liable.

If this becomes law, patients would generally be free to talk about or report errors, omissions, or settlements they reasonably believe involve medical malpractice, and health care providers could no longer make patients sign or enforce gag clauses that block those disclosures (settlement amounts can still be kept confidential). Providers who used such clauses in past agreements would have to notify affected patients and others within a year, and after the law takes effect providers face civil exposure for violating the rule — either actual damages or at least $10,000 plus attorneys’ fees — while the change is retroactive only to allow invalidation and enforcement relief for earlier clauses, not to award damages just because a clause once existed. The biggest impact falls on health care providers, who will need to review and change consent and settlement agreements, send required notifications, and expect more risk of litigation and related legal costs if they try to reinstate or enforce gag terms; patients (including estates and their lawyers) gain greater ability to disclose or discuss suspected malpractice. Important details are missing here: the bill text does not say exactly when the rule takes effect or who may bring the civil suit, and terms like “nondisparagement” are not defined, which could leave some practical questions unsettled.