Skip to main content
Top of the Page
gavel and stethoscope resting on wooden table
The WSMA advocates for physicians in the court system by ensuring a physician-centric perspective is considered during litigation.

Legal

The WSMA advocates for physicians' interests in the court system by initiating lawsuits and by filing "friend of the court," or amicus curiae, briefs that argue a physician-centric perspective.

The drafting of such briefs is resource intensive, and the WSMA generally retains outside counsel who specialize in writing these briefs. Because of the cost, the WSMA must be selective in allocating its resources to amicus briefs. Funding for these services comes primarily from the WSMA, though the WSMA often partners with other organizations such as the Washington State Hospital Association, Physicians Insurance, and the American Medical Association to share the expenditure of resources and increase the impact of the amicus arguments.

Amicus Curiae Case Selection Criteria

When determining whether or not to provide assistance to a particular litigant, we consider:

  • The parties directly involved and the merits of their claims.
  • Whether the legal issues extend or clarify the case law on a matter relevant to Washington physicians generally.
  • The precedential value of the case (i.e., level of court, jurisdiction, and nature of legal proceeding).
  • Whether the legal argument is likely to succeed.
  • The expense the WSMA would incur.
  • The probability that other organizations will partner with the WSMA to share the expense.
  • The extent of non-financial costs (e.g., whether litigation makes political and other options less feasible, how it will affect our relationship with important individuals and groups).
  • The membership status of the requesting individual.
  • Whether other, non-litigious options are available.

Recent Cases

HHS Agrees to Restore Deleted Public Health Data in Win for Washington's Patients and Physicians 

In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the defendant in WSMA et al. v. Kennedy et al., agreed to restore webpages and data that were wrongfully deleted earlier this year, ensuring that these critical resources are once again available to physicians, scientists, medical professionals, and the American public. 

Since January, the federal executive branch has deleted or removed information from numerous websites that physicians, nurses, scientists, public health professionals, and others rely upon, removing data on a wide range of topics including pregnancy risks, opioid-use disorder, the AIDS epidemic, and more. In response, the WSMA, leading a plaintiff group that includes eight medical organizations and public health nonprofits, sued the federal government to stop the deletion of vital public health and science data. WSMA et al. v. Kennedy et al. highlighted the administration’s “arbitrary, capricious and unreasoned” decisions to delete these critical resources, which federal law requires be made available to the American people.

In a press release, WSMA President John Bramhall, MD, PhD, said, “I am extremely proud of the health care community in Washington state and our partners in this case for pushing back on this egregious example of government overreach.

“As the leading voice for physicians in Washington state, the WSMA engaged in this legal effort to resist interference into the physician-patient relationship and to show patients and communities that regardless of the whims of governments or politics, physicians are committed to providing accurate, evidence-based care to patients and we will fight any intrusion into our ability to do so.” 

The terms of the settlement require HHS to restore websites and data sources identified in Appendix A of the complaint that were unlawfully taken down earlier this year and have not already been restored. The WSMA and its co-plaintiff organizations, which include the Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and AcademyHealth among others, expect the resources to be restored in the coming weeks, and will remain vigilant that the websites are restored to their condition at the time of removal, as per the settlement agreement, and for future removals of taxpayer-funded health information. 

WSMA Joins MultiPlan Antitrust Litigation

The WSMA has joined a federal antitrust lawsuit currently underway against MultiPlan (recently rebranded to Claritev), a health care data firm, and major health insurance companies including UnitedHealth, Elevance (Anthem), Humana, Aetna, Cigna, and various Blue Cross Blue Shield entities. The litigation, brought forward by the American Medical Association and the Illinois State Medical Society, alleges that these companies participated in a coordinated price-fixing conspiracy to generate billions in profits for MultiPlan and insurance providers by systematically underpaying out-of-network physician practices and health care facilities. The litigation seeks to end this illegal conduct as well as recoup financial damages for physician practices, physician assistants, and other health care providers who were harmed by this conduct.

The case has made significant progress, with the Department of Justice filing a statement of interest in March 2025 and the court denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in June 2025, allowing the litigation to proceed to discovery.

Physician practices and health care practitioners who have been out-of-network with major insurers may be entitled to financial damages for claims dating back up to 10 years. If you are interested in learning more, you can contact one of the lawyers appointed by the court to lead non-class claims or access resources, including a free case evaluation.

WSMA Joins ACOG to Facilitate Mifepristone Access, Oppose Legal Restrictions

On April 10, 2023, the WSMA issued a joint statement with the Washington Chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists responding to two federal rulings concerning mifepristone. The statement, together with recent legal action by the WSMA, ACOG, and others in organized medicine, underscores the overwhelming support for reproductive freedom and access to reproductive and abortion services within the house of medicine.

In an expected ruling in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, a federal judge in Texas suspended the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone—a gross interference in the practice of medicine and of the patient-physician relationship. Mifepristone is one of two drugs used for medication abortion, a protocol that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for two decades. The WSMA supports the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists clinical guidance on medication abortion.

Texas Medical Association and Physician Community Win Second No Surprises Act Lawsuit

Marking yet another victory on behalf of the physician community, in February 2023 a federal court in Texas ruled for the Texas Medical Association in its ongoing legal challenge of the independent dispute resolution provisions of the federal No Surprises Act.

TMA’s legal challenge, filed in September 2022, alleged that federal regulators, when issuing a final rule implementing the independent dispute resolution provisions, violated the plain language of the No Surprises Act by giving preference to the “qualifying payment amount,” which unfairly favors insurers when settling payment disputes between physicians and payers. This flawed approach was struck down by the Eastern District of Texas earlier last year before federal regulators sidestepped the court’s decision in the final rule.

The WSMA joined with other state medical and medical specialty associations in signing on to an amicus brief supporting a Texas Medical Association lawsuit. TMA’s lawsuit and the supporting amicus brief do not challenge the No Surprises Act’s patient protections, which went into effect in January of this year and which physicians support to help protect patients from surprise bills.

Davies v. MultiCare

In June 2022, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington made the right decision to keep the legal theories of medical malpractice and informed consent separate. The appeals court in Davies v. MultiCare had originally ruled that failure to offer a patient a study that you did not feel was indicated was a failure of informed consent. This ruling had the potential to dramatically change the nature of patient care by requiring disclosure of an infinite list of tests that you did not do. It also would invite patients to potentially demand inappropriate and dangerous tests with the threat of failure to provide informed consent if not offered.

Due to the potential danger to patients and physicians alike, your WSMA engaged in an amicus brief in support of the defendants to the Supreme Court to overturn this ruling. The court wisely overruled the appeals court and once more established the difference between medical malpractice and informed consent. Informed consent cannot be used as a theory for failure to test or treat for a condition that you did not diagnose and ruled out, either clinically or through other testing. Cases of failure to diagnose will remain an issue in medical malpractice as they had been previously. In the end, keep doing great medical care and the appropriate indicated tests without worry that failure to offer every test will be a failure of informed consent. -Nathan Schlicher, MD, JD

Federal Judge Rules for Physicians in Lawsuit Challenging No Surprises Act Act

In a clear victory for the physician community, in February 2022, the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas granted the Texas Medical Association's motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit challenging the independent dispute resolution provisions of the federal No Surprises Act. The ruling is the best scenario outcome for this litigation, which the WSMA supported by joining with 12 other state medical associations in an amicus brief file by the Physicians Advocacy Institute.

As a reminder, federal agencies have been working on rulemakings to implement the federal No Surprises Act, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2022. In September 2021, federal agencies issued a set of rules that dramatically favored insurance carriers by directing independent dispute resolution entities to assume the qualified payment amount as a reasonable out-of-network rate, potentially skewing the impact of the law on physicians and shifting even more leverage and profits to insurers. Organized medicine reacted swiftly to oppose this interpretation of the independent dispute resolution provision, filing lawsuits and motions to stay against the imbalanced interpretation, leading to this week's successful outcome.

In the ruling, the federal district court judge agreed that the portion of the No Surprises Act rule challenged by the TMA lawsuit was both procedurally and substantively flawed. While the ruling figures to be appealed and there are other legal challenges to the law pending, this preliminary win for the physician community is welcome news and an encouraging start to the legal fight over the implementation of the federal balance billing legislation.

Join or renew your membership today!
Join/Renew