Senate Judiciary Committee approves bill limiting past medical damages to amounts paid or accepted

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday advanced House Bill 1204, which would limit recovery for past medical expenses in personal‑injury lawsuits to the amounts actually paid by or on behalf of a plaintiff or that remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff is legally responsible.

The bill passed on a committee voice vote after roughly three hours of testimony and questioning, including lawmakers, an attorney for the bill proponents and several people who said they would be harmed by the change.

Proponents said HB 1204 restores fairness by aligning damage awards with what health care providers actually accepted in payment. Justin Allen, a partner with the law firm of Wright, Bridal and Jennings, described the bill in the committee hearing as a way “to rebalance those scales of justice” and said the measure is modeled on statutes enacted in other states. Allen told the committee the bill limits recovery “for past necessary medical care, past necessary medical treatment, or past necessary medical services received” to amounts actually paid or legally owed, and that “this bill does not impact any other category of damage,” including future medical costs, lost wages, property damage or non‑economic damages such as pain and suffering.

Opponents said the change would shift money away from injured people and toward insurers and defendants, would increase litigation and would not guarantee lower insurance premiums. Mike Boyd, an attorney from Magnolia who testified against the bill, told the committee the proposal would give “a gift” to out‑of‑state automobile insurers and would hurt ordinary Arkansans who buy insurance. Beth (Elizabeth) Wyatt, a retired educator from Arkadelphia who survived a catastrophic crash, told the committee that the real effects of limiting recovery are not theoretical: she described extensive ongoing medical needs after her collision and said she had to fight an insurer for a $25,000 payment after the crash. “If the insurance company had done the right thing, I wouldn't have needed my fabulous lawyer,” Wyatt said during testimony. Denise Hoggard, a lawyer who has represented victims and is a past president of the Arkansas Bar Association, said the change would tilt the balance toward wrongdoers and deprive victims of a negotiating tool used to obtain fair settlements without prolonged trials.

Lawmakers questioned proponents and opponents about several practical effects of the bill. Supporters pointed to similar laws in other states and argued the change would reduce “windfalls” to plaintiffs that arise when list prices — which many insurers never pay — are included in awards. Justin Allen cited Texas case law and said the Arkansas bill is “based largely on the Texas law” and would preserve the collateral‑source rule and other trial protections while changing how courts measure past medicals. Opponents countered that the experience in other states is mixed and that there is no clear evidence that the statutes meaningfully reduced consumer premiums. Committee members also raised concerns about how the change would affect settlements, contingency‑fee calculations and particular high‑cost medical malpractice cases such as obstetric claims; proponents said the bill applies only to the narrow “silo” of past medical expenses and leaves all other damages intact.

After questions and public testimony — including a parent who said the bill would leave injured people “to pay the price” and a number of attorneys for both sides — the committee accepted a motion to give the bill a favorable report. The motion was made by Senator Johnson and seconded by Senator Gilmore; the committee approved the motion by voice vote. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally of individual yes/no votes.

The committee debate focused on policy tradeoffs: sponsors emphasized a policy of measuring actual economic loss by what was paid, while opponents warned the change would reduce leverage for injured plaintiffs and could leave people with ongoing care needs undercompensated. The committee vote advances HB 1204 out of the Senate Judiciary Committee; further action would follow in the full Senate.

Sources and direct testimony are from the committee hearing transcript. Representative John Eubanks presented the bill and closed on behalf of proponents; Justin Allen testified as the bill’s attorney. Witnesses who spoke in opposition included attorney Mike Boyd, Elizabeth "Beth" Wyatt (survivor), Denise Hoggard (attorney), and Courtney Roldan (parent and Cabot resident).