Montana committee hears testimony on bill to raise non‑economic malpractice cap from $250,000 to $500,000

Representative Bill Mercer of Billings opened the hearing on House Bill 195, urging the committee to update a non‑economic damages cap set in 1995 that currently limits awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and related losses to $250,000.

"We think that coupled with an index of that factor to increase it by 2% on a go forward basis is a prudent change to this cap," Mercer said, summarizing the bill's structure.

Supporters representing physicians, hospitals and business groups told the committee the cap has not kept pace with inflation and that raising it and indexing it would stabilize the malpractice insurance market and help preserve health care access in rural Montana. Opponents, including trial lawyers and individual commenters, said caps deny full compensation to some injured people, disproportionately harm groups with little or no wage loss, and lack clear evidence that they improve access to care.

House Bill 195 would immediately increase the non‑economic cap from $250,000 to $300,000, then raise it by $50,000 increments until it reaches $500,000 on Jan. 1, 2029, with a 2% annual adjuster thereafter. The bill does not change compensable economic damages such as past and future medical expenses, lost earnings or costs to retrofit a home for disability; proponents and opponents agreed those categories remain uncapped under current law.

A number of witnesses described local workforce and insurance effects they say stem from the current cap. Sean Goichoechea, an attorney who said he has handled more than 50 cases before the Montana Medical Legal Panel and "probably hundreds of cases for doctors," told the committee he has seen providers worry about verdicts that could exceed their insurance and the risk that physicians would leave the state. Jean Branscum, chief executive officer of the Montana Medical Association, said the association supports the bill and described it as a "measured approach" that would increase the cap immediately and then phase subsequent increases while preserving a statutory limit meant to stabilize practice liability.

Hospital witnesses said litigation and defense costs can be large and unpredictable. Bill Patten, a CEO who has led rural hospitals since 1996, said a recent legal matter cost his hospital and insurer large sums to defend and increased renewal costs; he told the committee that coverage limits for his hospital were reduced from $34,000,000 to $20,000,000 while the hospital's premium rose by more than $300,000. Cody Langbein, CEO at Central Montana (CMMC), said his organization pays more than $500,000 a year in malpractice premiums and that insurance is one of the largest expense items outside staff salaries and supplies.

Physicians who testified said malpractice risk affects practice decisions. Kristen Anderson, a family and preventive medicine physician in Missoula, said the bill "works to protect access to care in local and rural communities by helping to retain and recruit physicians," and cited a March of Dimes finding that half of Montana's counties lack obstetric care.

Opponents pressed legal and equity concerns. An attorney identified in testimony as Mr. Smith said, "Raising this cap. And we're opposed on principle because we don't think there should be a cap at all," and argued caps remove decision‑making from juries and harm people who lack substantial economic damages (for example, homemakers, the elderly and children). Justin Stalpes, who testified as an individual, argued the modern health care market is dominated by large, consolidated hospital systems and that raising a statewide cap benefits both small practitioners and large, profitable systems alike.

Committee members questioned witnesses about specifics. Witnesses and attorneys told senators and the chair that in 2023 there were 43 claims filed at the Montana Medical Legal Panel, that primary care density in a cited University of Washington 2021 study was roughly "83 primary care doctors per 100,000 people," and that the cost to defend a medical malpractice case can approach a half million dollars and often takes two to six years from filing to resolution. Attorneys at the hearing also discussed contingency fees sometimes being 40 percent and the mechanics of how a jury verdict is allocated among economic and non‑economic items and how a judge applies a cap under current law.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing. Representative Mercer closed by asking members to consider the Texas data and other materials in the packet and urged "favorable consideration." The committee chair noted procedural matters including a planned facility tour the following day and said staff would send a follow‑up e-mail with logistics.

Why it matters: the bill would change the statutory limit on non‑economic damages that has been in place since 1995 and is central to ongoing debates about malpractice costs, insurance availability and access to rural medical services. Proponents framed HB 195 as a targeted, incremental modernization intended to preserve provider supply; opponents framed it as an unfair restriction on damages and questioned whether caps actually affect physician location or care supply.

What's next: HB 195 remains in committee. Members discussed possible amendments and asked staff and witnesses clarifying questions; no formal action or amendment was recorded at the hearing.