Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Bills topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reports bill on mitigation of medical claims in auto cases after contentious debate
Summary
House Bill 440, revised during the hearing, would create a rebuttable presumption a claimant who has health insurance and does not use it failed to mitigate medical damages; the committee reported the bill with amendments. Supporters said the measure addresses inflated medical billing practices; opponents said it could force injured people to pay
Representative Henry brought House Bill 440, which the committee amended to remove a prior requirement that claimants must use their private health insurance before pursuing auto-liability claims. The amended bill instead creates a rebuttable presumption that a claimant who had health insurance but did not use it failed to mitigate medical damages; the presumption may be rebutted for good cause.
The Department of Insurance described the change as analogous to mitigation doctrines used in property claims: failing to take reasonable steps to limit additional damage can affect recoverable costs. Adam Patrick, DOI legislative liaison, said the presumption is intended to inform triers of fact and that the bill does not remove the plaintiff’s ability to justify higher medical costs when good cause exists.
Opponents, including Luke Williamson of the Louisiana Association for Justice, argued the approach would push cases into litigation and could harm injured people who need providers that do not accept their insurance or who face upfront deductibles and caps. Williamson also noted many providers will not treat auto‑accident patients under standard health plans, requiring letters of protection or other arrangements.
Committee action: The committee adopted an amendment that removed mandatory pre‑use of health insurance and reported HB 440 with amendments (roll call reported as 11 yeas, 7 nays). The committee and witnesses discussed potential clarifications — for example, how to account for insurer denials or provider refusals to accept health coverage — and asked sponsors to refine language.
Ending: The bill moves to the House calendar; members asked for clarifying language about when the presumption applies, how it may be rebutted, and how subrogation or liens would be handled in practice.
