Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB 447 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses urge indexing damage caps to inflation as committee hears HB 447
Summary
Supporters of House Bill 447 told the House Judiciary Committee that Ohio’s caps on non-economic damages are arbitrary and outdated; the bill would increase those caps and create an inflation-indexing process, though witnesses noted parts of the sponsor’s amendment remain objectionable.
Supporters of House Bill 447 told the House Judiciary Committee that Ohio’s statutory caps on non-economic damages are arbitrary, too low compared with inflation and harm survivors’ access to justice.
Lindsey Lawrence, identified as an attorney with the Ohio Association of Justice, said the caps enacted in the mid-2000s limit juries’ ability to award full compensation. "The constitutional responsibility of juries to decide questions and provide justice to those who have been harmed was replaced by an arbitrary number set in law," she said. Lawrence described medical malpractice and assault cases in which jury awards were later reduced to the statutory cap and said the bill, as amended, would make two primary changes: increase caps by inflation and create an annual adjustment process. During testimony she cited different inflation-adjusted figures, saying at one point the $250,000 figure would be increased to $580,000 and that $500,000 would rise to $830,000; she also referenced a calculation that equated 2005’s $250,000 to about $415,197.48 in 2025.
Emily Gamar, director of public policy for the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence, told the committee that arbitrary limits on non-economic damages are "a moral and psychological injustice for victims" and argued indexing would better reflect lifelong harms survivors experience.
Sharon Montgomery gave first‑hand testimony about a crash that led to severe medical and psychological harms, saying caps can demean victims and asking the committee to consider removing per-incident caps. Committee members asked witnesses about whether indexing would increase litigation; Lawrence said it would not necessarily increase filings and described procedural hurdles in malpractice cases (affidavit-of-merit requirements, etc.).
Witnesses generally urged change but also noted remaining objections to amendments that keep certain hard caps for specific medical malpractice claims. The hearing concluded after committee members closed questioning and the chair noted written proponent testimony available on members’ iPads.
