Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Malpractice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would add physician assistants to Montanalaw capping non-economic malpractice damages
Summary
A bill heard March 1 in the Senate Judiciary Committee would add physician assistants to the statutory definition of "health care provider" so they may be subject to the statecap on non-economic medical malpractice damages; opponents argued the cap itself may be unconstitutional.
Representative (House District 52) told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 1 that House Bill 458 would add "physician assistants" to the statutory definition of "health care provider" so they can "take advantage of the cap, the non economic damage cap."
The bill, a sponsor described as a cleanup to reflect physician assistant independent-practice law passed earlier, would amend the health-care-provider definition located at 50-16-504 to include physician assistants alongside physicians. The sponsor said the change simply "adds PAs to the non economic damage limit" and was intended to align the statute with the independent-practice authorization that passed in 2023.
Why it matters: Non-economic damage caps limit awards for pain and suffering and similar harms. Supporters said the bill ensures consistency across provider types after a 2023 change that expanded independent practice for physician assistants. Opponents told the committee that adding physician assistants to the definition would make the cap available to more providers even though they said the underlying cap is constitutionally vulnerable.
Opponent testimony came from a speaker representing the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, who argued the cap on non-economic damages is "illusory" and said a challenge could show the cap violates Article II, Section 16 of the Montana Constitution, which protects remedies for injuries. That witness said there was no evidence presented that physician assistants face the insurance-rate emergency cited in earlier increases to the cap and said, "It is unconstitutional."
An informational witness associated with hospital interests said she was available to answer questions about the bill and its relation to prior legislation (House Bill 195) that adjusted non-economic damage limits. Committee members asked clarifying questions about the legal effect of adding physician assistants to the statutory definition and about whether the bill itself changes the cap or merely extends its applicability; the sponsor repeatedly emphasized that the bill only adds PAs to the existing statutory definition and does not change the cap amount.
The committee did not record a vote on the bill during the hearing. The sponsor closed by calling the measure a "simple cleanup bill."
Ending: The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 458 and moved on to other items on the agenda. No final action or recorded vote on HB 458 was entered in the transcript.
