House committee advances bill limiting past medical damages to amounts paid or accepted

The House Judiciary Committee voted to advance House Bill 1204 on a voice vote after a two-hour discussion and public testimony. Representative John Eubanks, District 46, the bill sponsor, described the measure as "an act to establish recovery of damages for necessary medical care treatment or services rendered" and said it would limit recovery for past medical care to amounts actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or that remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff is legally responsible.

The bill, as explained by Representative Eubanks and counsel Justin Allen of Wright, Lindsay & Jennings, inserts the word "past" in three places to clarify that the change applies only to past medical treatment, not future medical care. "It states that recovery of damages under subsection a of this section for past . . . necessary medical care, past necessary medical treatment, or past necessary medical services received includes only those costs actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or that remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party is legally responsible," Eubanks said.

Supporters who testified or provided organizational backing told the committee they view the proposal as a policy measure to reduce the economic burden of tort litigation. Representative Eubanks named groups that support the bill, including the Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel, Arkansas Farm Bureau, Arkansas Hospital Association, Arkansas Medical Society, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, Arkansas Trucking Association, National Federation of Independent Business and the Poultry Federation.

Opponents said the bill would reduce recoveries for many injured plaintiffs and create unequal outcomes depending on insurance status. Justin Minton, an attorney from Saline County and former insurance adjuster, told the committee the measure is unnecessary because courts already can reduce unreasonable or unnecessary bills and that in practice the bill would "penalize responsible socially productive people by anchoring the amount of their non-economic damages to a lesser number." He described a common settlement practice in which attorneys and insurers apply multipliers to medical expense baselines when valuing non-economic damages and said those multipliers would reduce recoveries when the baseline is lowered by negotiated rates.

Steven Finnegan, a veteran who testified he was treated by the VA after an automobile crash, said federal subrogation rights and VA claims mean veterans may be particularly disadvantaged. "This would be a harmful bill to veterans," Finnegan said, adding that many Arkansas veterans rely on VA care and that federal reimbursement rules differ from state law.

Committee members questioned legal and practical effects. Representative Shepherd and others noted a similar provision in the 2003 Civil Justice Reform Act was struck down (Johnson v. Rockwell) because the court found it improperly invaded judicial evidentiary authority. Counsel and Representative Eubanks replied the bill was drafted to present a substantive definition of recoverable damages rather than an evidentiary rule, and that courts would still decide evidence and discovery procedures. Eubanks referenced Edwards v. Thomas (2021), saying the Arkansas Supreme Court adopted a balancing approach and might uphold a clear statutory statement of recoverable damages.

Members also discussed subrogation, the "made whole" doctrine, and differences between privately funded plans and federal programs such as TRICARE and VA health care. Justin Allen said in practice subrogation is difficult and often rare because of procedural and legal obstacles, though other witnesses described frequent federal subrogation in cases involving federal benefits.

After debate and public testimony, Representative Eubanks moved that the committee "do pass" on House Bill 1204. The committee conducted a voice vote. The chair called for "ayes" and "noes" and announced, "The ayes have it. The motion carries."

Votes at a glance - House Bill 1204 — Motion: Do pass. Mover: Representative John Eubanks. Second: not specified. Committee vote: voice vote; chair announced the motion carried ("ayes have it").

Why it matters The bill would change how juries and courts calculate past medical damages in personal-injury cases in Arkansas by tying recoverable past medical damages to amounts actually paid or left unpaid for which the plaintiff is legally responsible. Supporters say the measure will reduce insurance and business costs that proponents say raise prices for Arkansans; opponents say it would reduce injured plaintiffs' recoveries, create disparities among insured and uninsured plaintiffs and have particular adverse effects for veterans and people covered by federal plans.

What's next The committee advanced the bill to the next stage. Committee members noted the Arkansas Supreme Court and lower courts ultimately will determine how evidence and verdict forms are handled if the statute becomes law. The committee chair said the next committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, when the chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court is expected to appear.