Delegate Wilson seeks liability cap, mandatory dispute process in Child Victims Act amendments

An Annapolis hearing on March 26 drew standing-room testimony and sharply divided witnesses over House Bill 13-78, a proposal from Delegate Wilson that would alter how Maryland compensates survivors under the 2023 Child Victims Act (CVA).

Delegate Wilson, sponsor of the measure, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill is meant to address what he described as an unexpectedly large number of claims and an associated fiscal threat to the state. He said the amended bill keeps an $890,000 cap "per claimant" for suits filed on or before Sept. 30, 2025, but would lower recoveries for actions filed after Oct. 1, 2025, to the damages levels available under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. The revision also would create a mandated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process for new claims and require public reporting of settlement payments while allowing victims to redact their names.

"This is not about the money," Delegate Wilson said in his testimony, describing the measure as an effort to preserve the state's fiscal ability to pay services while still providing survivors with an avenue to be heard. He added that reporting requirements are a first step toward understanding the fiscal scope and implementing any future minimum staffing or payout standards.

Why it matters

The change would alter remedies created by the 2023 Child Victims Act, a statute many witnesses described as a hard-won expansion of access to civil court for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Plaintiffs' attorneys and survivorsadvocates warned that the proposed amendments would sharply cut recoveries for people who do not file claims before the Sept. 30 cutoff and could be subject to constitutional challenge because the CVA created vested rights when it became law.

What supporters told the committee

Supporters of the bill, including Delegate Wilson and several lawmakers who spoke in favor, said the legislature must balance survivor compensation with the statebudget and the ongoing need to fund public services. Wilson told the committee the bill attempts to preserve access while creating a transparent, accountable ADR process and a public record of payments so payouts are not hidden in confidential settlements.

Several witnesses representing survivor organizations said they accept the need to consider fiscal consequences but pressed for safeguards in any ADR model. Lisa Jordan, an attorney with the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, urged the committee to specify which state entity would administer the ADR program and to ensure survivors could choose a jury trial instead of a purely administrative process.

What opponents told the committee

Opponents included plaintiffsattorneys and survivors who testified that the amendments would effectively take away rights granted under the CVA. Multiple attorneys argued the changes raise serious constitutional issues. Patrick Thronson of the Maryland Association for Justice and other lawyers pointed to Maryland precedent and constitutional protections that, they said, prevent the Legislature from abolishing vested rights conferred by statute.

"The day the governor signed the CVA, rights were conferred on anyone who had ever been abused prior to that day," attorney Corey Stern said. He and several other lawyers warned that forcing claimants into an ADR program or reducing damages after the CVA's enactment could be litigated as an unlawful impairment of vested property rights.

Survivors who testified described long-term harms and asked the panel to preserve access to full civil discovery and jury trials. Several attorneys and victimsadvocates said ADR without robust discovery or the option to go to court would deprive claimants of the tools they need to prove cases that often require reconstructing decades-old events.

Numbers and process questions

Speakers discussed differing counts of pending claims. Delegate Wilson said there were approximately 4,500 claims filed with another 1,500 waiting; several plaintiffs' lawyers disputed the larger figures in public reporting and said, based on filings, the number of cases in court was substantially lower. (Witnesses furnished different counts during the hearing.)

Committee members and witnesses also pressed for clarity on multiple procedural points: whether the ADR process would be binding, what discovery would be available in ADR, how attorneysfees would be governed, whether the ADR body would be established by executive branch rule or by legislation, and whether there would be timelines for ADR decisions so claimants could avoid further delay.

Statements from advocates and attorneys at the hearing reflected those uncertainties. Ellen Flynn, an attorney representing survivors, said limiting discovery and excluding jury trial access would "hamper [survivors'] abilities to prove their claims." Several defense and plaintiffs' counsel advised the committee to pursue a funded, studied approach rather than last-minute statutory changes.

What the bill would do (as described at the hearing)

- Preserve an $890,000 damages cap for claimants who had filed by Sept. 30, 2025. - Limit damages for claims filed on or after Oct. 1, 2025, to the Maryland Tort Claims Act cap (witnesses described a lower cap roughly in the $400,000 range); the bill text and Administrator guidance would be the ultimate source for the exact figure. - Require claimants to go through an ADR process; the sponsor characterized the ADR as nonbinding on its face but said reporting and public disclosure of payments would be required. - Require public reporting of amounts paid per claimant while allowing victims to redact their names if they wish.

What the committee asked for

Lawmakers pressed the sponsor and panels for more specifics on how ADR would be structured and whether limiting remedies prospectively (for abuse that occurs after Oct. 1) rather than by filing date might address legal concerns. Several members suggested a working group or summer study to produce a workable ADR model and estimates of fiscal exposure before altering statutory rights.

Context and next steps

No committee vote was recorded at the hearing. Multiple witnesses asked for further drafting and a clear administrative plan for whatever ADR mechanism the legislature might approve. Plaintiffs' attorneys urged lawmakers to avoid retroactive reductions in remedies and to preserve jury access and full discovery; the sponsor asked the committee to consider the amended bill as a compromise to protect both survivors and the state's fiscal capacity.

Ending

The hearing made clear lawmakers remain deeply divided about how to reconcile the CVA's expansion of access to justice with fiscal and constitutional limits. Committee members asked for additional detail on ADR design, timelines and statutory drafting before moving the bill forward.