Guam senators hear emotional testimony as Bill 82 aims to repeal mandatory medical‑malpractice arbitration

A public hearing on Bill 82 — legislation that would repeal Guam’s mandatory medical‑malpractice arbitration process and move the island to a court‑based screening and adjudication model — opened July 1 with emotional testimony from family members of patients who died after care at Guam hospitals.

Carly Kanata, the mother of 3‑year‑old Kaivan Roy Kanata, told the committee her son was brought to the Guam Memorial Hospital (GMH) emergency department on June 24, 2025 and was discharged that day; he later died after transport to Naval Hospital. “Nothing is gonna bring him back, but it can prevent this from happening again,” Kanata said.

The hearing also included testimony from Emily Ontellon, grandmother of 4‑year‑old Drew Michael Ontellon Bamba, who died Nov. 20, 2024 after a post‑operative complication following a scheduled pediatric surgery. Ontellon described her grandson’s transfer to an intensive‑care area that lacked needed equipment and said staff efforts to resuscitate him were hampered by missing supplies.

Why it matters: supporters of Bill 82 said Guam’s mandatory arbitration process has limited access to justice for low‑income residents, added costs and other barriers that can prevent malpractice claims from reaching court. Opponents and some witnesses warned insurers might withdraw malpractice coverage if arbitration were repealed, potentially affecting recruitment and retention of specialists on the island.

Committee discussion and direction

Senator Sabrina Salas Mantanani, identified in the hearing as the Oversight Chair on Health, told Kanata she would work with the Health oversight committee on the matter and praised her testimony. “Change, it is time for change,” she said.

Senator Matata, chair of the Committee on Public Safety, said the testimonies highlighted gaps in ambulance distribution and emergency response capacity in southern villages. “I don’t think in any one moment I’ve been more frustrated … that we are unable to help a person in need,” Matata said, noting ambulance response times and station coverage as areas needing review.

Senator Grimtaldo asked whether reliable malpractice insurers currently serve Guam and whether repeal of arbitration would prompt insurers to stop offering coverage. He also asked whether a government‑claims fund model has been discussed as an alternative to private malpractice coverage.

Several senators outlined the bill’s compromise features as drafted: preserving confidential apology protections for clinicians, retaining a prescreening step to filter frivolous claims, and allowing parties to opt for arbitration by agreement. Legislators said the bill aims to reduce plaintiffs’ up‑front costs, while offering procedures intended to protect providers from frivolous suits.

Formal action and next steps

No vote was taken at the hearing. The chair kept the record open for additional written testimony for a limited period (the chair stated she would accept submissions for roughly five to 10 business days and invited filings by email or mail). The chair said she would work with the oversight chair for Health and with committee staff to gather additional information, including how other jurisdictions structure malpractice review and the availability of insurer coverage if arbitration is repealed.

What was said about insurers and courts

During the hearing some witnesses and senators cited past testimony saying insurers had told local providers that coverage could be limited if arbitration were removed; the committee asked staff to follow up to confirm current carrier positions. A senator also quoted a District Court of Guam judge’s opinion described in earlier litigation to show how mandatory arbitration could disadvantage indigent plaintiffs who cannot afford arbitration fees; the committee discussed whether a court‑screening model could address that concern.

Community testimony and hospital accountability

Multiple witnesses called for changes at Guam Memorial Hospital and for greater transparency when serious adverse outcomes occur. Senators and witnesses urged review of administrative practices, ambulance stationing in southern villages, and whether hospital leadership changes are needed. Several speakers said settlements and some medical‑board investigations remain confidential under current rules, limiting public knowledge of prior discipline.

Public comment and evidentiary records

Speakers who testified asked the Legislature to prioritize patient safety and access to justice rather than pursue financial settlements that keep records confidential. The chair asked committees to collect additional written testimony and to coordinate oversight hearings with the health community and legal advisers to refine language.

The hearing closed with condolences to the families and a stated commitment by the committee to continue research and receive additional testimony before any markup or vote on Bill 82.