[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6349626,"mediaKeyId","2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c","parentId",2238063,"title","Heated committee hearing on raising North Dakota’s medical malpractice cap; proponents and health providers spar over effects","audioSeconds",370,"startMs",2120000,"endMs",2490000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c&start=2120&end=2490","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c/thumbnail_2120000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6349626/North-Dakota/Heated-committee-hearing-on-raising-North-Dakotas-medical-malpractice-cap-proponents-and-health-providers-spar-over-effects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349626-9a4713d4e7f821e79de9c5053df060e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148613&Signature=ZjlXmfgl2FlmGwYOkr5U7fut3ohsUCCHdkeW1ZDFi0LfeD6gENKfgGsQB0eE7lhB12051qR1s7uyazPiCsCr99icCyU7jTkJBJcJ3IIj-tkR5iVS~3jfXBtT~daSddBB98CttGWHZrzz~BetQ9yffPz5yf1NMCU3y8Zy8gTtsLOr0-ameM05zrFUl3KHZsc39htlOeg~4QHWk0afaKKcM6LIilDGPp97dvLKExTc4yCo129x9Mq4mGsHllIJbn5pnO~xtoy5IUtHjomsa2zqkyOjcKTFTBds3~qURYlJXbbZJd-dgfHugXqfGN9olSBO9-u34ILckmlQaL5qkszt0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of North Dakota","date","2025-02-03T00:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee heard more than two hours of testimony on House Bill 1349, which would amend Section 32‑42‑02 of the North Dakota Century Code to raise limits on non‑economic damages in medical malpractice actions and to add a delayed effective date and expiration for phased increases.

Representative Ben Koppelman, the bill sponsor, told the committee the current cap — enacted in 1995 at $500,000 — has not been indexed to inflation. He said the legislature should consider whether a fixed cap remains fair and noted that the intent of any cap is to balance injured patients’ compensation against insurance and access concerns.

Nut graf: Victims’ advocates and plaintiffs’ attorneys urged substantial increases, arguing the present cap does not reflect inflation or families’ needs after catastrophic injuries; hospitals, insurers and medical groups warned that large increases or elimination would sharply increase malpractice costs, insurance premiums, and potentially affect access to care in rural areas.

What proponents said
Jackie Hall, executive director of the North Dakota Association for Justice, asked the committee to raise the cap to reflect today’s dollars and offered an incremental path: raise the cap to $1,000,000 in the near term and increase by $250,000 annually to $2,000,000 by 2029. Hall said proponents initially sought $3,000,000 but negotiated down to $2,000,000 after talks with medical partners.

Two witnesses described personal harm in detail. Emily Cowan of Williston testified that a wrong‑site surgery led to complex regional pain syndrome and extensive ongoing treatment; she told the committee juries sometimes award substantially more than the cap and the statutory limit reduced her award. An online witness, Nashel (Michelle) Rick, said her family’s wrongful‑death claim was limited by the cap and that she struggled to find attorneys willing to take the case under the current limit.

What opponents said
Melissa Howard, general counsel for the North Dakota Hospital Association, and representatives of insurer COPIC and the North Dakota Medical Association opposed the bill. They said increasing or eliminating the cap would make North Dakota an outlier, raise liability and insurance costs, and could discourage physicians from practicing in the state. COPIC’s Gerald Zarlengo testified that past liability crises forced doctors out of practice in other states and argued caps stabilize the market and access to care.

Defense attorney Tracy Kolb, who frequently represents physicians and hospitals, described how the cap currently applies “no matter how many defendants are sued,” and warned that the bill’s original language could multiply exposure by applying the cap per defendant and per claim. Kolb gave the committee background on a recent Williston verdict that exceeded the cap and explained that pretrial settlements can change how a verdict is reduced to judgment.

Committee discussion and tentative amendment proposals
Committee members and witnesses discussed alternate schedules. Hall said proponents would accept an approach that establishes $1,000,000 sooner and steps up to $2,000,000 by 2029 (increments of roughly $250,000 per year). Opponents and insurers pressed for more study, warning of increased premium costs and possible workforce impacts. Hospital and business groups also testified in opposition, citing higher health‑care costs and employer premium increases.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1349 without taking immediate action and will consider amendment language and additional written testimony; witnesses on both sides asked for more study and negotiation before a final committee decision.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Feb 3, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee heard more than two hours of testimony on House Bill 1349, which would raise non‑economic damages caps in medical malpractice cases and phase in higher limits.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28895,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6349629,"UND law dean urges funding, continuity for proposed immigration law clinic",75,361000,436000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c&start=361&end=436","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c/thumbnail_361000.jpg","/articles/6349629/North-Dakota/UND-law-dean-urges-funding-continuity-for-proposed-immigration-law-clinic","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349629-5bf6c156741fc6679188d940f1d71618/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148613&Signature=BOjKHUgIuK0LveSNq0W9VJ11gNlYWe0jzOggPHP1IAOiW7MgpYqqBvqzvRB3Lldhc8apxEjgvQbHoxCMK6UzFjFJ~DRfRTV5D6tY-xyvPdX0aa6HR66Ka8piHHasXKLfDupKuC0tRm8tFIc72Bn6Mr7MpLKcogDb2CudtBy957KkJB4xCqZ0XHkGrooTUminky96749SyWa6MowMWfYAdpzwKA5B8k0X4xRNXO25O7U5E5dstUcEdrZKs2KFtsPiUALqoLw~DGuoLRnn3bu33s3fjojMciTfyv4jzwuZinmRw~YZoLN0qrbPcH20axKijZRjadvB9uHMeflySLAWfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing Tuesday on House Bill 1600, which would establish an immigration law clinic at the University of North Dakota School of Law and provide a state appropriation.

Dean Brian Pappas of the UND School of Law testified in favor of the bill, telling the committee, “immigration matters and attorney fees for those often cost high dollar amounts, commonly in the range of 15 to $20,000,” and saying the clinic would expand the state’s capacity to handle immigration work while providing low‑cost representation for employers and employees.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Emily O’Brien of District 42, described the proposal as part of broader workforce development recommendations. O’Brien said the clinic would offer “free or low cost legal assistance” and provide training and practical experience for students.

Nut graf: Supporters said the clinic would fill a statewide shortage of immigration attorneys and train future lawyers for North Dakota, but witnesses and the sponsor asked the committee to fix technical language, clarify who must pay certain filing and relocation costs, and extend the proposed funding beyond two years to avoid disrupting multi‑year immigration cases.

Committee discussion and testimony
Dean Pappas told the committee the law school estimates the clinic could train “anywhere from 5 to 20 students per year” but that operating an immigration clinic requires staff and infrastructure. He gave the committee a budget range for annual operating costs: “somewhere in the range of 150 to 200,000,” including a staff attorney at an estimated salary of “80 to 110” thousand dollars with benefits, $8,000–$10,000 in travel, about $10,000 for malpractice insurance and roughly $35,000 for association membership and training.

Both Pappas and Representative O’Brien emphasized that, under federal law, employers are required to pay certain filing fees and “the law clinic or anyone else cannot pay for them,” a point O’Brien asked be reflected in amended bill language. Pappas said the clinic would provide legal representation at low or no attorney cost to clients but would not be able to cover employer‑required filing fees or relocation expenses.

Pappas and O’Brien also raised concerns about the bill’s two‑year appropriation. Pappas noted that immigration matters can take “usually 5 years” in some visa categories, and said a two‑year funding window could force clients to change counsel midaction; O’Brien and Pappas both recommended extending funding to at least four years or structuring the appropriation as one‑time with a pathway for continuing funding.

Procedure and next steps
Chairman Clameen (House Judiciary Committee) paused committee questions to allow the sponsor to work with counsel on technical corrections. The committee heard no further witnesses in opposition and closed the hearing without voting; Representative O’Brien told the committee she would return with draft amendments coordinated with the dean.

Ending: The committee took no action on House Bill 1600 and recessed pending the sponsor’s submission of amendments and additional drafting. If amended, the bill will return to a future committee meeting for further consideration.","The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing Tuesday on House Bill 1600, which would establish an immigration law clinic at the University of North Dakota School of Law and provide a state appropriation.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6349616,"Bill to require officers to report suspected undocumented immigrants draws opposition from law enforcement groups",946,9092000,10038000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c&start=9092&end=10038","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c/thumbnail_9092000.jpg","/articles/6349616/North-Dakota/Bill-to-require-officers-to-report-suspected-undocumented-immigrants-draws-opposition-from-law-enforcement-groups","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349616-8c0c83c74595e41323aa80740bb8a95e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148613&Signature=C46s8Ci4qy-erphbbS~D~~uZd3J~kAUnRHZWCpEFXwWofwjQ7RxWtzg5~E7CjfZgXJkuTGKrLry-DCNA1o0LMu6vzaYVWg-zLTTdJ~VsffS5fDSxUVkOirZbtjdQIKEJ6JmnHb0RSH9e-Zhps8kIoCehlM6tt0TQ10bKnOW79S99B-clTZhT-lVubZZR9ujyRD2LOsSvHpQCkVg~ERRMRZeLnRMe77oxFjM-2UZERGcC823trQF~tK12jhdM95K~iViQp1om9FQPmkY558aJfhNbEB0uIyY17DdNVfWIlrhG9j5JvMQ6mzq7cOybbDtuMguOzBYWjJTC9tGB3KTA~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Jim Casper opened a hearing on House Bill 15 85, which would require peace officers to report, as soon as practicable, any person the officer reasonably believes is present in the United States illegally to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) via the federal tip line or agency website.

Casper said the measure aims to ensure local law enforcement cooperates with federal immigration enforcement; he cited a January presidential executive order and framed the bill as aligned with federal efforts to identify and remove persons present unlawfully.

Nut graf: Representatives and law enforcement officials said they already cooperate with federal authorities in many instances, but county sheriffs’ offices and police associations opposed the bill as written, urging revisions to clarify reporting channels, add a culpability standard (for example, “intentional” or “knowingly”), and avoid making an officer guilty of an infraction for routine or unclear encounters.

What proponents said
Casper told the committee he intended the bill to lower the criminal standard for failure to report from a class B misdemeanor to an infraction and to make reporting to federal authorities a statutory duty for peace officers. He said officers had relayed inconsistent practices and that statutory clarity would ensure cooperation.

What opponents said
Lieutenant Dustin Olson (Burleigh County Sheriff's Department) and representatives of the Chiefs of Police Association opposed the bill in its present form. Olson said officers already contact Customs and Border Patrol or Border Patrol/ICE when they encounter suspected undocumented persons and that practice tools and workflows differ by locality. He warned the bill’s “shall report” language and the proposed infraction penalty could criminalize routine policing or place officers at risk if reporting channels are unclear.

Other opponents, including the Association of Counties, recommended adding a mental state (for example, “intentionally”) to avoid strict‑liability infractions for officers who reasonably believed someone else had already reported the person or where Border Patrol had instructed a different process. Chiefs’ counsel Stephanie Ingebretsen suggested replacing “reasonably believes” with the more established legal standard “probable cause” and broadening allowable reporting channels beyond a specified tip line.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing without taking action; witnesses asked the sponsor to work with county sheriffs, chiefs and prosecutors to clarify reporting routes and culpability language before the bill would move forward.","Representative Jim Casper’s bill would require peace officers who reasonably believe an immigrant is in the U.S. illegally to report the person to federal immigration authorities. Law enforcement associations and county groups testified against the proposal as written, citing operational concerns, culpability standards and reporting channels; the",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6349620,"Committee hears concerns about bill requiring officers to report false reports; police groups warn language too broad",1135,7522000,8657000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c&start=7522&end=8657","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2238063-c0fabfcafb341f47f9b991c497aacd8c/thumbnail_7522000.jpg","/articles/6349620/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-concerns-about-bill-requiring-officers-to-report-false-reports-police-groups-warn-language-too-broad","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6349620-c6858d22395a216e62bb3308e1202e8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771148613&Signature=Y5dgwjBG4qWcM1OZlAN~WU3Wr0GAKHcBNi0z~ZpUmHKHs7HELDN9NI59vFRkJoGLagcjSTZTfdli2f5K~5TbHa~KtYGccGAAJRpJLp2NDocoieYsd-dBUZDoFs3yoC2ANR5Bh5fi7cuxeCUPdykcvULb8mvn4QY4uQyd0aA4EBARkz383er64qtdcOYFREJZG2FJAosNJQ8aDBzTT1hgwTU81RsP9aIBII-AdDawNATGbn~1qYOToxrPCl5Bs9U6Zp80JUutu~j7HIqOtsMpPkvMxkC8hnK-mNS7390xrO8hMcW7pvf7YlNpUiAT26r1Dqo-IjqRdZnlEkfgKNNUqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Steve Vetter introduced House Bill 1194, a bill to amend Section 12.1‑11‑03 of the North Dakota Century Code to require reporting to a state's attorney when an individual provides false information or files a false report with law enforcement.

Representative Vetter told the committee he has seen “an increase in false accusations” and that the bill simply requires that peace officers forward suspected false‑report complaints to the state's attorney rather than leave that decision to a single officer’s discretion.

Nut graf: While the sponsor framed the bill as a limited procedural change, law‑enforcement organizations and prosecutors raised concerns that the bill’s current wording is overly broad, could create workflow burdens, and would remove important officer discretion in routine encounters where people provide misinformation.

Opposition and police concerns
Lieutenant Dustin Olson of the Burleigh County Sheriff’s Department, speaking for his department and as president of the North Dakota Peace Officers Association, testified in opposition. Olson said officers receive false statements frequently and that the term “false information” covers many routine, noncriminal interactions (for example, a suspect giving a false name to avoid arrest). He warned the bill’s “shall report” requirement would force law enforcement to send many routine reports to prosecutors and remove needed discretion.

Stephanie Engerbretson, representing the Chiefs of Police Association, echoed concerns that the bill’s phrase “having knowledge of or reasonable cause to suspect” is broad and uncertain. Chiefs suggested narrowing the bill to require reporting when officers have knowledge a serious false report has been made (for example, a fabricated emergency report that triggers an emergency response).

Procedure and next steps
Police witnesses said many jurisdictions already forward serious, proven false reports to prosecutors; they asked the committee to narrow language to focus on false emergency reports or to add culpability standards (for example “probable cause” or “knowingly”). The committee heard the concerns and closed the hearing without taking action.

Ending: No committee vote was taken; sponsors and stakeholders signaled they will work on drafting clearer, more narrowly tailored language if the committee wishes to pursue the issue.","House Bill 1194 would require law enforcement officers to report false information or false reports to a state's attorney. Sponsors called the measure a modest step to ensure false accusers are reviewed by prosecutors; law‑enforcement groups opposed the bill as written, urging narrower language and preservation of officer discretion.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Heated committee hearing on raising North Dakota’s medical malpractice cap; proponents and health providers spar over effects

UND law dean urges funding, continuity for proposed immigration law clinic

Bill to require officers to report suspected undocumented immigrants draws opposition from law enforcement groups

Committee hears concerns about bill requiring officers to report false reports; police groups warn language too broad