Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Malpractice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves bill limiting use of apologies in medical suits
Summary
The House passed first substitute Senate Bill 41 on Feb. 24, 2006, a measure that bars many apologies and explanatory statements made by physicians to patients from being used as evidence in later malpractice litigation; the vote was 50-24.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on Feb. 24 approved first substitute Senate Bill 41, a measure intended to encourage communication between physicians and patients after adverse medical events by restricting how apologies and explanatory statements may be used in later legal proceedings.
Sponsor Representative Last told colleagues the bill’s purpose is straightforward: “The intent is just to open the door for the patient and the doctor to communicate.” He said the change would allow doctors to offer condolences and explain what happened without fear that those statements would automatically be used against them in court.
Opponents raised constitutional and procedural concerns on the House floor. Representative Wyatt argued the bill risks narrowing the information available to juries, saying jurors’ decision-making could be “less and less possible” if relevant statements are withheld. “If the statement doesn’t hurt the physician, then it shouldn’t hurt for the jury to hear it,” Wyatt said.
Other members asked whether admissions of fault would remain admissible. Representative Lawrence pressed the sponsor on whether a doctor’s statement that admits fault during a conversation would be protected; the sponsor said such an admission would still be admissible. Representative Romero questioned whether a statutory change was necessary when rules of evidence might address the issue.
Supporters said the bill would reduce the chill on candid conversations that can calm patients and potentially reduce unnecessary litigation. Representative Allen said the measure allows physicians to express sympathy and explanation without creating a barrier to open communication.
After a motion to end debate, the House approved the bill on a roll-call vote, 50 in favor and 24 opposed. The measure will be signed by the Speaker and transmitted to the Senate for the president’s signature.
The next procedural step is transmittal to the Senate for signature; no implementation timeline was given on the House floor.
