Washington’s Uniform Disciplinary Act (UDA) is the backbone of healthcare licensure and discipline in the state. Enacted to consolidate and standardize enforcement across health and health-related professions, the UDA governs who may be licensed, how licenses can be restricted or denied, and how disciplinary actions are investigated and resolved.
In short, the UDA governs both licensure and livelihood for healthcare professionals in Washington.
The UDA applies not only to discipline, but to initial licensure and credentialing. Out-of-state applicants may be denied licensure if, among other things, they have:
Once reported, the information is permanent (unless successfully disputed) and available to virtually every entity that controls your professional life — from hospitals and health plans to licensing boards.
If an application is denied, the applicant is entitled to written notice stating the factual and legal basis for the denial and the right to an adjudicative hearing. The catch is that the applicant must request that hearing within 28 days, and the burden is on the applicant to prove they are qualified for licensure.
Miss that deadline, or mishandle the process, and the denial becomes final as to that application. That alone can trigger collateral consequences, including complicating licensure in other states and requiring disclosure of a prior license denial.
Most disciplinary matters begin with a complaint alleging unprofessional conduct. RCW 18.130.080(1)(a). The Department of Health or the relevant board or commission first screens the complaint to determine:
If the answer to either is “no,” the file is closed. If both are “yes,” an investigation is opened. Also note that prior complaints may be considered, even if they never resulted in discipline.
The numbers matter. During the 2021-2023 reporting period, the Department of Health received 29,706 complaints, but completed investigations in only 26% of cases. Of those complaints, just 6% resulted in disciplinary action. That disparity may be driven in part by limited agency resources and the reality that many cases are carried over into subsequent years for further review.
The takeaway is straightforward: while most complaints may not warrant formal investigation or discipline, how you respond can determine which category your case falls into.
When discipline is pursued under the UDA, the matter typically proceeds on to either formal or informal actions. The distinction matters because it affects the timeline, the procedural requirements imposed on the licensee, and the range of potential resolutions. In practice, providers can often tell which track they are in by the notice they receive—formal matters commonly begin with a Statement of Charges (SOC), while less serious matters may be addressed through a Statement of Allegations (SOA) and, in appropriate cases, resolved through a Stipulation to Informal Disposition (STID).
Formal discipline begins with a Statement of Charges (SOC) alleging violations of the UDA. The licensee has 20 days to respond in writing. Failure to do so almost always results in a default order, one of the most damaging and avoidable outcomes.
SOC cases proceed through the adjudicative process and may end in an agreed order or a final order after hearing.
Less serious matters may be addressed through a Statement of Allegations (SOA) and resolved via a Stipulation to Information Disposition (STID), often before formal charges are filed. These resolutions are typically available only where there is minimal patient harm and no pattern of violations.
The data is telling. Of the disciplinary actions taken during the 2021-2023 period, 40% were resolved informally, while nearly 30% ended in default orders, often because providers failed to respond or engaged too late.
Healthcare professionals have a statutory duty to cooperate with UDA investigations. RCW 18.130.180(8). How you cooperate matters. Informal emails, phone calls, and seemingly routine requests are often the most dangerous stage of a case.
Our attorneys at Chapman Law Group act as your filter, strategist, and shield, ensuring that cooperation does not become self-inflicted damage. Well-intentioned providers, before retaining counsel, may cooperate in ways that ultimately harm them by supplying investigators with the very information or concessions needed to pursue discipline.
Chapman Law Groups attorneys have defended healthcare professionals nationwide in complex licensure, disciplinary, and enforcement matters for years. With the opening of a new satellite office in Seattle, we are proud to bring that experience to Washington State.
"*" indicates required fields
Laith Quasem
Associate Attorney
Professional Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, Healthcare Compliance, Federal Criminal Defense
Seattle Office (Satellite)
Washington
Phone: (877) 234-5911
Our Michigan healthcare regulatory and licensing lawyers negotiated to permit the physician to voluntarily resign from the employment contract without any reporting to the NPDB or the state licensing board.
Our Healthcare Regulatory attorneys worked with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery and the Attorney General’s office to review the surgeon’s skills.
After testing positive for alcohol at levels that indicated binge drinking, our healthcare licensing attorneys submitted the polygraph results to the DOH along with letters from her medical providers attesting to her fitness to practice.
The family of a deceased Michigan Department of Corrections inmate sued several corrections officers and medical providers, alleging they failed to provide adequate treatment for the inmate’s asthma.
