House hearing debates bill to let clinicians express sympathy without automatic evidentiary use

Representative Tansey introduced House Bill 6210 as a pared‑down apology‑law proposal that would limit the admissibility of expressions of sympathy or condolence after unanticipated clinical outcomes while preserving explicit admissions of liability as evidence.

Mary McBurney, a lawyer for Care New England, testified the bill is an evidentiary change that would not prevent meritorious malpractice claims because admissions of negligence would remain admissible. "An admission of negligence would still be admissible," McBurney told the committee, adding that allowing human expressions of empathy could improve patient‑clinician relationships without blocking legal remedies.

Dr. Raymond Powery, chief clinical officer at Care New England, described the personal and professional burden on clinicians who avoid any expression of sympathy for fear litigation will hinge on their words. "At that critical moment there are no other words to say except 'I am so sorry,'" he said, explaining that the inability to communicate compassion contributes to clinician burnout and may worsen retention.

Tony DeSisto of the Rhode Island Association for Justice opposed the bill, saying previous versions were repeatedly narrowed and arguing the change could make it harder for injured patients—who often lack resources—to prove malpractice. DeSisto asked the committee to consider advisory review by the courts and to negotiate narrower text to preserve patient access to evidence.

Witnesses and committee members referenced past litigation and the so‑called James Woods case as part of the bill’s history and debated whether the change would meaningfully alter malpractice outcomes. The hearing closed with participants expressing a willingness to seek compromise language and to consult the judiciary; the committee did not take a final vote during the session.