Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves emergency-room liability change after lengthy debate; backers say it will help keep specialists on call
Summary
The House passed the first substitute to House Bill 270 raising the civil standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence in certain emergency-room malpractice cases involving unstabilized patients and transfers, a move supporters said will shore up specialist on-call participation while opponents said it risks reducing victims’ ability to recover; vote 44-28.
Representative Cheryl Allen introduced first substitute House Bill 270 as a targeted change for emergency-room malpractice cases involving unstabilized patients and transfers to specialists. Allen said emergency departments are unique under federal EMTALA obligations and argued raising the standard of proof in jury trials to clear and convincing evidence (from preponderance) addresses a liability disincentive that keeps specialists off call.
"Emergency rooms are the safety net for the suddenly ill, injured and certainly the uninsured," Allen said, urging colleagues to preserve specialist availability. Supporters, including Representatives Dayton and Hughes, said the state faces shortages among specialists and that medical-liability pressure is among the drivers.
Opponents cautioned the change reduces injured patients’ access to recovery and warned of precedent: raising the evidentiary standard for negligence suits is a significant departure and may limit compensation for malpractice victims. One member noted lawyers and plaintiffs’ advocates testified they would stop taking many ER cases under a clear-and-convincing standard.
The House adopted a friendly floor amendment clarifying the bill’s focus on care provided in emergency departments and on cases involving unstabilized patients. After extended debate and several amendments, the first substitute to HB 270 passed the House on a recorded vote, 44 yes, 28 no. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration.
Supporters emphasized the goal of maintaining on-call specialists, while opponents urged caution about restricting remedies for injured patients and about possible legal challenges.
The next step is Senate consideration; floor discussion did not specify implementation timelines or budgetary impacts.
