Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Malpractice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to expand definition of ‘health care provider’ advances amid dispute over malpractice protections
Summary
A proposal to make more hospital employees eligible for medical malpractice procedures drew support from hospitals and midwives but opposition from patient‑advocacy groups that said the change would extend caps and limit compensation for injured patients.
House Bill 9 26 would expand the statutory definition of “health care provider” to include employees, agents or contractors of a hospital who are licensed, certified, registered or “otherwise authorized” to render health care services, with the practical effect of sending related claims through the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act rather than ordinary civil‑tort procedures.
Sponsor Delegate Nicole Williams said the bill is a clarification to ensure that clinicians who work in hospitals — for example limited‑scope x‑ray technicians, respiratory therapists and nurse midwives — are treated as medical providers for malpractice filing purposes and not as ordinary personal‑injury defendants. Jake Whitaker, representing Maryland’s hospitals, told the committee the bill is narrow and intended to ensure consistency across hospital care teams; he said it would not reduce a patient’s ability to file a claim.
Supporters included the American College of Nurse‑Midwives’ Maryland affiliate, which said uniform treatment of interdisciplinary teams avoids repeated statutory updates when new classifications or certifications are created. Opponents — led by the Maryland Association for Justice and medical‑malpractice lawyers — urged an unfavorable report. They said the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act imposes different filing procedures and a cap on damages that can be materially lower than general personal injury caps, and they warned the proposed language is vague (for example, “otherwise authorized”) and would invite litigation over who falls inside the statute.
Committee members asked whether hospital malpractice insurance would cover newly included classifications and whether the bill would force injured patients into a different damage cap. Opponents said they were open to discussing a narrower approach but urged clearer, more restrictive drafting to avoid transferring more categories of caregivers into the malpractice statute without explicit legislative intent.
Ending: The committee did not hold a vote and solicited follow‑up discussions among stakeholders. Opponents and proponents said they were open to realigning language to address the concerns raised at the hearing.
