Committee hears hours of testimony on bill to make assaulting hospital workers a felony; advocates and opponents clash over scope

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard extensive testimony on House Bill 13‑41, which would expand the current classification that elevates assault to a class C felony in emergency rooms to cover all hospital workers across a hospital facility. Supporters from hospitals and medical groups urged the change as a workforce and safety measure; opposition witnesses said the proposal is too broad and raised concerns about prosecutorial discretion and unintended consequences.

Representative Heiner (presenting HB 13‑41) said a similar emergency‑room felony enacted several years ago appeared to reduce assaults in emergency departments and that staff across the hospital—nurses, phlebotomists, dietary and security workers—cannot always retreat from violent situations. “These people are entering rooms and not only with patients but with people who are visiting the patients,” Heiner said, arguing expansion to the whole hospital would give staff parity with existing protections.

Melissa Howard, general counsel for the North Dakota Hospital Association, and Angie Sircia, vice president and general counsel for Sanford Bismarck, testified in support. Sircia submitted data showing weapons separately detected by Sanford systems in 2024: Sanford Bismarck reported 30 firearms, 1,156 knives and 214 other items detected year‑to‑date; Sanford Fargo reported 50 firearms, 1,228 knives and 906 other items (testimony submitted to the committee). Sircia and other hospital witnesses said training, security enhancements and behavioral response teams are part of hospitals’ efforts but that statutory parity is needed to deter assaults and help retain staff.

Nursing and medical associations also supported the bill. Sherry Miller, executive director of the North Dakota Nurses Association, said nurses experience workplace violence at notably higher rates than workers in other industries and argued that stronger penalties and clearer protection for hospital staff would support retention and safety. Courtney Coble of the North Dakota Medical Association said the bill would align penalties for assaults on hospital workers with those for law enforcement and other currently protected groups.

Opponents urged narrowing the bill’s language. Jackie Hall of the North Dakota Association for Justice said the measure’s definition of “hospital worker” is broad — potentially covering everyone in a hospital, from dietary staff to the CEO — and asked whether data supports elevating felony status for all such encounters rather than targeted subsets of workers. Brad Peterson of Protection Advocacy and the State’s Attorneys Association’s representative Jonathan Byers likewise urged caution: they said the bill could create heavy administrative burdens, pose prosecutorial discretion issues, and have unintended effects when applied to individuals with mental‑health crises. Peterson also noted differences between the state hospital’s secure environment and other hospital settings and warned the bill as written is too expansive.

Committee members asked witnesses several operational questions: whether hospitals’ weapons detections were limited to emergency‑room entrances (Sanford witnesses said their detection systems were at emergency entrances and some main entrances remain locked); how “hospital worker” should be defined (Sanford counsel said a licensed hospital and employees within it are covered); and how reporting and charging decisions would be handled (hospital witnesses described internal reporting and security workflows and said prosecutors exercise charging discretion). Jackie Hall and other opponents raised that raising penalties could increase litigation and make prosecutors’ jobs more difficult.

No committee vote on HB 13‑41 is recorded in the transcript. The hearing record shows broad support from hospital systems and professional associations and organized opposition raising concerns about scope, prosecutorial discretion and safeguards for people in mental‑health crisis. Committee members asked follow‑up questions and closed the hearing without recorded committee action during this session.

Ending: The committee took no formal action during the hearing and recessed after closing testimony; sponsors and opponents were asked to provide clarifying language and information for future consideration.