Washington Supreme Court Rules Against Virginia Mason in Patient Protection Case

SEATTLE, Oct. 19, 2026 /CourierPR/ -- In a landmark decision issued on October 1, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Virginia Mason Medical Center violated a decades-old patient-protection rule by privately communicating with an injured patient’s former treating doctors, without the patient’s knowledge or consent, over a span of years. This ruling marks a significant victory for patients seeking justice in medical negligence cases.

The case, which has been in litigation for seven years, centers around Michael Snyder, a Wenatchee resident who was left with permanent disabling injuries after undergoing surgery at Virginia Mason in January 2018. Snyder’s legal team, led by David Beninger and John Gagliardi of the Luvera Law Firm, along with appellate counsel Catherine Wright Smith and Howard Goodfriend of Smith Goodfriend, has been at the forefront of this legal battle.

In 1988, the Washington Supreme Court established the rule in Loudon v. Mhyre, which prohibits defense lawyers from having private, one-sided conversations with a plaintiff’s treating doctors. The rule is designed to protect the doctor-patient relationship and ensure that patients have fair and equitable treatment in legal proceedings. The Washington Supreme Court, in its recent decision, upheld this rule, stating that it protects two values: the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship and the defendant’s right to investigate claims.

The court’s decision stems from Virginia Mason’s violation of the Loudon rule. The hospital privately communicated with Snyder’s former doctors, who had left the facility, over a period of years. The hospital’s own privilege log listed over 400 instances of these communications, which were conducted without Snyder’s knowledge or consent.

The legal battle has been complex and multifaceted. Initially, the trial court found that Virginia Mason violated the rule but denied Snyder’s request for a default judgment on liability, as the record lacked sufficient information to show that the violation substantially prejudiced the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals agreed that the hospital broke the rule but held that Snyder bore the burden of proving harm, treating the violation as an ordinary discovery problem. However, the Washington Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, disagreed with this approach.

The Supreme Court ruled that upon finding a Loudon violation, prejudice is presumed, and plaintiffs need not prove an actual impact on the litigation to obtain relief. The court also noted that the hospital had at least partially waived its confidentiality protection by involving a QI committee member in the litigation. This decision means that when the rule is broken, the patient does not carry the burden of proving harm, making it easier for patients and families to seek a remedy if hospitals violate the rule.

The ruling sends the case back to the trial court, which will need to review the withheld records and decide on the appropriate remedy for the hospital’s clear violation of the Loudon rule. The decision is seen as a significant step in protecting patient rights and ensuring that hospitals adhere to fair and transparent legal processes.