Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Malpractice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances substitute to limit physician personal-asset exposure in malpractice judgments
Summary
A committee substitute for HB195 would shield certain personal assets of individual medical providers from malpractice judgments when the provider carries accepted insurance or is part of the Patient Compensation Fund; supporters say it protects providers and access to care, opponents say it risks restricting victims' civil remedies.
Representative Lorelita Sapienski, the sponsor, introduced a substitute for House Bill 195 that would protect specified "personal assets" of an individual medical provider (a "natural person") from judgments in medical malpractice cases when the provider carries appropriate insurance or participates in the Patient Compensation Fund (PCF). Sapienski said she drafted the substitute after meeting with many providers who fear losing homes, college funds and other personal property after malpractice judgments.
Trial lawyer Nick Madison testified in opposition, arguing the substitute may create an exemption that shields people who harmed patients from the civil-justice system. "We want to make sure that people who have harmed someone are not getting exemptions from our civil justice system," Madison said, asking for carve-outs to preserve accountability for serious harm.
Joanna Bencomo, executive director of New Mexico Safety Over Profit, said the substitute strikes a "reasonable compromise": routing responsibility through insurance while keeping patients' access to remedies. A business-coalition witness urged the committee to support measures that make the state more attractive to providers.
Sponsor Sapienski acknowledged discussions about adding a monetary cap to protected personal assets (she cited $3 million–$5 million as examples) and said she would be open to amendments. Committee members asked details about scope — whether business assets or assets held by entities would be covered, whether the substitute changes the definition of "occurrence," and whether other health providers such as dentists should be included; the sponsor said the substitute protects only personal assets of natural-person providers and does not alter occurrence definitions.
The committee moved a motion described on the record as "do not pass" on the original House Bill 195 and "do pass" on the committee substitute; the chair announced a due-pass recommendation on the substitute. The sponsor said the bill will next go to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.
