House rejects narrow retroactive fix for hernia-mesh claims

The House voted down Senate Bill 2 33 A, which would have allowed people to bring claims related to hernia-mesh removal occurring in a narrow date range despite Oregon—s five-year statute of repose for medical malpractice.

Representative Chi Chi, who carried the bill, told members the measure was prompted by the experience of Jim Evangelista, who said a 2018 hernia repair left him with chronic pain caused by non-dissolvable sutures; Chi Chi said that under current law the five-year repose bar prevented him from pursuing legal action. "This is at its core an access to justice issue," Representative Chi Chi said on the floor.

Opponents argued the bill was too narrow and retroactive. Representative Mannix said he sympathized with Evangelista but would vote no on public-policy grounds because the bill would change a limitations period retroactively for a narrow class of cases. Representative Kropf and others noted precedent for narrow, retroactive statutory fixes in Oregon's history but also urged a broader, prospective review of malpractice statute limits.

The roll-call and floor exchange recorded several no votes; the clerk declared Senate Bill 2 33 A "failed" for not receiving a constitutional majority. The transcript records Representative Scharf and Representative Ruiz among those voting no, and Representative Bosshardt Davis recorded as a no; the clerk declared the bill failed on the floor.

Supporters said the proposal would align medical malpractice repose periods with other negligence categories and create a one-time opportunity for claims tied to hernia-mesh removals from Jan. 1, 2018, through Jan. 1, 2019. Opponents said retroactive, narrowly tailored relief is an inappropriate way to change statute-of-repose policy and urged broader, prospective reform of Oregon—s medical-negligence limitations.