The Oregon House passed Senate Bill 11 73 on third reading after a lengthy floor debate over product‑liability law and patient remedies. The measure says health care providers that use, but did not design or manufacture, medical products should not be treated as commercial sellers subject to strict product liability; the change responds to a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision that, in the court’s view, exposed providers to seller‑level liability when they charge for products dispensed as part of care.

Representative Javidy, who carried the bill, argued that the statute had been misaligned after the Oregon Supreme Court decision in Providence v. Brown and that the result was to expose hospitals and clinics to strict liability for defective products they did not create. Supporters said the law was economically dangerous and would raise costs, reduce availability of services and discourage independent providers. The bill’s sponsors said it retains malpractice and negligence remedies for patients while preventing automatic application of strict product liability to providers who merely supplied products used as part of care.

Opponents, including Representative Chi Chi and Representatives Nelson and others, said the change would make it harder for patients to obtain compensation when a manufacturer is unreachable, insolvent or overseas, and risked reducing institutional incentives to choose safer products. Several members described the 1979 product‑liability statute and the Oregon Supreme Court’s recent interpretation as tools that spread risk through the chain of commerce and protect consumers when manufacturers are unavailable. Opponents called for more time to craft safeguards rather than a last‑minute floor change.

Carrier Javidi and others rebutted that courts and plaintiffs can still pursue manufacturers, importers and distributors and that Oregon had become an outlier since the Supreme Court’s decision; they urged the House to adopt the statutory correction to match other states and avoid destabilizing provider insurance markets. The bill’s opponents said the current law preserves patient access to remedies when other parties cannot be reached.

The House voted and the clerk declared Senate Bill 11 73 passed by constitutional majority.

Why it matters: The bill changes statutory exposure for health care facilities and could affect litigation patterns, insurance costs for providers and patient recovery paths. Supporters framed the change as restoring national alignment; opponents argued it shifts risk toward patients in some scenarios and could blunt institutional accountability for selecting and monitoring products.

What’s next: The bill as passed will proceed through final enactment steps and could prompt rule‑making or further statutory clarifications. Advocates on both sides indicated willingness to continue negotiations if the bill advances to final enrollment or implementation.