Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing claims on bill extending malpractice windows and creating private claims for harms from gender‑dysphoria treatments
Summary
SB218 would create a specialized private cause of action and extend the statute of limitations for alleged harms from gender‑dysphoria medical interventions; detransitioners and some clinicians urged passage while medical societies and providers warned it would impose strict liability and chill care.
Sen. John Fuller said Senate Bill 218 would create a private cause of action and a 25‑year statute of limitations for injuries allegedly caused by medical interventions for gender dysphoria. Supporters — including detransitioners, some physicians and advocates — described cases of late‑emerging harms and urged the committee to provide a longer window for legal recourse.
Proponents including Jamie Reid (self‑described whistleblower), detransitioners who testified they had difficulty finding counsel under current limits, and medical‑ethics critics asked the committee to recognize what they called a growing cohort of harmed patients and to give them time to pursue claims.
Opponents — including the Montana Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics (state chapter), and the ACLU of Montana — said the bill departs from standard malpractice law by imposing strict liability, adding attorney fees and punitive remedies, and singling out one category of care. Dr. Saul Rivard, president of the Montana Academy of Family Physicians, warned of a chilling effect on primary care in a state already short of clinicians; other opponents said the bill would be discriminatory, punitive and likely to raise malpractice costs.
Witnesses debated study designs and interpretation of evidence about long‑term outcomes. Sponsor Fuller compared the proposal to other long‑latency tort laws (asbestos, Agent Orange) and said civil remedies are proper where long‑term harm emerges. The committee did not vote at the hearing.
What to watch: If advanced, amendments are likely to address negligence standards, insurance coverage, and whether adult patients are covered differently from minors.
