Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Devices Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances medical device liability bill after hourslong debate
Summary
Second substitute S.B.110, which would require reprocessors of single-use critical medical devices to assume liability, cleared a third‑reading vote after extended floor debate over patient safety, market effects and legal responsibility; the measure was read for a third time by a 25–2 margin and returned for further action.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Senate spent a sustained portion of its Feb. 2, 2005 session debating a bill that would shift liability for certain reprocessed single‑use medical devices from original manufacturers to the companies that recondition those devices.
Senator Ted Butters, sponsor of the second substitute S.B.110, told the Senate the measure targets “critical single use medical device[s]” — devices stamped by their manufacturer for one‑time use and intended to contact normally sterile body tissues. Butters said reprocessors that recondition and resell those items should “assume the liability” for any failures after reprocessing, arguing the practice can leave Utah manufacturers such as Merit Medical exposed while reprocessors profit from second uses (as he put it, the original manufacturer “doesn’t get anything on the second use”).
The bill’s language makes reprocessor liability central in lines 48–49 of the 52‑line draft, and proponents argued the measure protects local manufacturers and clarifies responsibility for patient safety when devices are reused.
Opponents pressed a series of policy and legal concerns. Senator Arendt (floor remarks recorded by another speaker) and Senator Hatch said the legislature would be assigning product‑liability policy by statute, and Senator Hilliard warned the change could have unintended consequences for victims and insurers. Several senators asked whether hospitals, the Food and Drug Administration regulations, existing common‑law allocation of fault, and patient notification requirements were adequately addressed in the bill.
Senator Butters said the committee and affected manufacturers had discussed the issues and that reprocessors currently may repackage devices under someone else’s label; he proposed the bill to ensure the reprocessor — not the original Utah manufacturer — carries the legal risk when a reused item causes harm.
Senators debated market effects, patents, interstate implications and whether the change would unfairly reduce costs for reprocessors at the expense of victims and insurers. Some supporters argued the bill did not remove a plaintiff’s ability to sue an individual wrongdoer; others said the measure should be tightened to focus liability on defects traceable to the reprocessing step.
After extended floor discussion and questions, the body called the roll. Second substitute S.B.110 received 25 yes votes, 2 no votes and 2 absentees and was ordered read for the third time. The measure will return to the floor for further consideration under the normal calendar and amendment processes.
Next steps: the sponsor indicated he would provide clarifying language and technical drafting where senators had raised concerns; committee staff will assist with rewritten amendments ahead of final action.
