Washington’s medical commission waited more than nine months after filing formal allegations before issuing any public announcement about doctor Brooks Watson. The case involved allegations of nonconsensual sexual contact and unwanted sexual advances or inappropriate remarks toward five coworkers over five years, and it still shows no final decision as of July 6.

Here’s the practical gut-check: Washington law says regulators must proactively alert the public when an investigation results in formal allegations being filed. For Watson, the state medical commission sent him a “statement of charges” on Aug. 19, 2025, amended those charges in June to include an allegation he assaulted someone at his home, and still made no public announcement for more than nine months after first filing allegations. Watson remains licensed to practice.

That mismatch between the letter of the notification requirement and how the public actually learns about serious allegations is what KUOW and ProPublica zeroed in on. The broader finding is blunt. Washington receives discipline records and processes that, by law, should keep the public informed early. But the reporting found Washington fails to reliably call attention to serious misconduct allegations against doctors who keep practicing while their cases proceed. In other words, the “public safety” promise of proactive disclosure can become a “wait and hope” situation for patients, employers, and anyone trying to make a timely risk judgment.

To understand why this is so consequential, it helps to know how the system works. The Washington Medical Commission receives roughly 2,000 allegations of provider misconduct each year. It investigates, and if it finds evidence that a doctor violated the law, it issues a statement of charges. The doctor can contest those charges before a health law judge, or before the commission issues a final order spelling out disciplinary action or dropping the case. That interim period is where delays happen, and where licensing status matters most.

In Watson’s case, the alleged conduct is specific and workplace-based. During an encounter in 2023, commission records allege Watson isolated a subordinate in his office and, without her consent, kissed her, touched her breasts, put his hands down her pants, groped her vagina, and exposed his penis. Later, the commission sent the initial statement of charges Aug. 19, 2025, then amended in June to add an allegation of an assault at his home. In the criminal case stemming from that home incident, Watson’s attorney said Watson disputes the allegations and pleaded not guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge. The attorney also pointed to another lawyer for workplace matters, and that lawyer acknowledged a request for comment but did not answer emailed questions or respond to voicemails. Watson did not reply to emails or phone messages seeking his response to the medical commission’s claims.

The reporting also looked at another Washington discipline case: Mark Mulholland, an eastern Washington OB-GYN accused last year of conducting irregular pelvic exams and making inappropriate remarks. Mulholland, at least initially, kept seeing patients while discipline moved forward. KUOW and ProPublica reported that at least one person accused Mulholland in court of abuse and negligence that occurred during the time between when the commission filed formal charges and when it announced them. That woman alleges Mulholland “shoved his fingers into her rectum” and said, with confidence, that she had a nice-looking and tight vagina.

Mulholland’s ripple effects have been extensive in civil court. More than 80 lawsuits related to his alleged misconduct have been filed against the doctor himself, his former employer Kadlec, or its affiliate Providence hospital chain. Mulholland has not responded to requests for comment. In civil litigation, the doctor, Providence, and Kadlec deny wrongdoing. In the state disciplinary case, which remains open, Mulholland signed an interim order agreeing to restrictions on his license.

What’s striking across both cases is how notification can work in practice. Washington lawmakers, decades ago, created a separate pathway requiring regulators to issue a press release when formal allegations are filed against a doctor. A Federation of State Medical Boards analysis (as cited in the reporting) says Washington is alone in legally requiring such proactive outreach to the news media. Yet KUOW and ProPublica found the commission did not reliably publish public announcements. For example, Mulholland was not first publicized in the press release section of the commission’s website, but instead in a subscribers-only email that provided no details about what he was accused of, arriving six weeks after charges were filed.

The commission’s process includes an email list tied to “legal actions” that require recipients to opt in, which legal experts said could technically satisfy the notification requirement depending on how the law is read. But it’s not just whether an alert exists. It’s whether it includes meaningful detail fast enough to matter. Administrative and employment law attorney Seth Rosenberg, as described in the reporting, said that giving only names, dates, and locations without descriptions of the charges arguably makes it “bereft of meaningful detail.” In addition, a schedule described as quarterly practically guarantees long gaps where serious cases can stay off the radar. The reporting notes at least 269 days passed recently without subscribers receiving an email announcing charges filed against a doctor and without the commission announcing charges in an online press release. Some cases still had not been publicized.

Presented with questions, the commission said it plans to alter its practices to make allegations more visible. It stated that while it believes current practices meet the law’s notification requirement, it is “always looking for ways to grow,” and that technology and public accessibility standards evolve since the statute was written. On May 29, the same day it sent that statement, it sent four email notices about initial or updated allegations against licensees not immediately suspended, the first such emails subscribers had received since June 2025.

Finally, there is political pressure that this gap is not a minor communications issue, but a compliance issue with patient safety implications. Washington state Rep. Gerry Pollet, a Seattle Democrat and advocate for disclosure and accountability, said the medical commission was “absolutely not complying with the law,” arguing that the legislature intended quick public notification through a news release while it’s still news, not through limited listserv emails months later. He said he plans to ask other legislators to contact the medical commission and seek more prompt and public notifications, and if that fails, he suggested a possible budget direction to demand the commission follows the law.

For executives and boards, this matters even if you are not in the business of licensing doctors. Hospitals and health systems routinely manage risk based on information available at the time. When discipline announcements lag, the delay can affect staffing decisions, credentialing governance, insurer posture, and how quickly organizations can act on credible red flags. In a system where formal allegations can mean immediate exposure to patients and continued employment, communications mechanics become a safety mechanism. KUOW and ProPublica’s reporting suggests Washington’s mechanism is currently too slow to consistently protect the people it is supposed to inform.