Senate advances bill to limit negligent-credentialing suits while rejecting board-member shield amendment

Senators spent a substantial portion of the floor session debating Senate Bill 150, a bill responding to the Utah Supreme Court's Archuleta v. St. Mark's Hospital decision and aiming to limit "negligent credentialing" as a statutory cause of action.

Senator C. Adams, sponsor, said the bill would reset the statutory rule to the status before the court's decision and "eliminate negligent credentialing as a cause of action" while preserving other avenues of liability for hospitals. Opponents and supporters focused on whether individual members of credentialing boards should retain personal exposure.

Senator Valentine introduced Amendment 1 to the bill to make explicit that an individual member of a credentialing board would not be subject to a malpractice cause of action, while leaving any negligent credentialing cause of action intact against the medical provider or institution. Valentine said the amendment was intended to protect volunteer board members and to be broad enough to include peer-review and hospital boards.

Sponsor Adams resisted the amendment, arguing that existing statutory immunities and the bill's text created conflicts if individual board members were granted personal immunity while institutions remained liable. Senator Herkhart warned the amendment could mean hospitals would be named in every malpractice action and described the cause of action as judicially created in the Archuleta case.

The amendment was put to a vote and failed. The motion to adopt the bill then proceeded to final passage. The clerk read the roll call and announced the tally as recorded on the floor (as read aloud by the clerk), which the record indicates as 18 votes in favor, 4 against, and 7 absent. The bill, having passed final reading as announced, will be forwarded to the House for its consideration.

Why it matters: The bill addresses tension between judicially created tort liability and legislative authority to define civil causes of action. Supporters said it removes a new, judge-created route to liability and restores predictability; opponents worried it could leave injured patients without an avenue to hold institutions accountable. The floor debate highlighted competing views about institutional responsibility, volunteer board exposure, and the reach of existing immunities.

Next steps: The measure will be transmitted to the House for the Speaker's signature and subsequent consideration there, according to clerk announcements on the floor.