With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". broader public interests involved because it protected personal contractual rights solely. Id. at 616-17 (quoting Smith v. Bates Tech. Coll., 139 Wn.2d 793, 805, 809, 991 P.2d 1135 (2000)). And unlike Korslund and Cudney, Piel involved a statute declaring PERC remedies supplement others and must be liberally construed to accomplish their purpose. Id. at 617 (quoting RCW 41.56.905). In those circumstances, the Piel court recognized a private common law tort remedy as necessary to fully vindicate public policy. Id. ¶17 Meanwhile, our division of this court issued two opinions adhering to Korslund and Cudney, though our Supreme Court recently remanded one case for reconsideration in light of Piel. See Worley v. Providence Physician Servs. Co., 175 Wn. App. 566, 574-76, 307 P.3d 759 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 168 Wn.

A: recognizing right to privacy in receipt of health care services to the extent consistent with providing adequate medical care and the safety and good order of the facility
B: holding whistleblower protections available under the washington health care act rcw 4370075 adequately promoted workplace safety ensured compliance with the accepted standard of care and prevented fraudulent billing in the health care industry
C: holding claim that negligent supervision caused assault was health care liability claim because it was inseparable from the health care and nursing services provided
D: holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider
B.