Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tort Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates raising non-economic damages cap in maternal-negligence suits; legal language under revision
Summary
Representative Chisholm explained HB2585 would raise the non-economic damages cap from $750,000 to $1,000,000 in certain maternal-negligence cases. Committee legal counsel warned the bill's current "notwithstanding this section" language could eliminate statutory exceptions; members moved the bill to the end of the calendar for redrafting.
Representative Chisholm told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 2585 would increase the statutory cap on non-economic damages in certain health-care liability cases involving maternal negligence from $750,000 to $1,000,000 when negligence results in death or permanent injury to a pregnant or postpartum woman.
"It creates, an adjustment by increasing the cap, from 750,000 to 1000000 dollars in health care liability cases involving, maternal negligence that results in death or permanent injury for a pregnant or postpartum woman," Representative Chisholm said when introducing the measure.
President Boleso raised a legal concern: the bill's opening phrase "notwithstanding this section to the contrary" might eliminate exceptions in subsection (h) of statute 29-39-102 (for example, intentional misconduct or intoxication), thereby imposing a cap where the law currently provides none. Committee counsel Michelle Fogarty responded that, as drafted, the notwithstanding clause would do exactly that and recommended limiting the clause to subsection (b) (the subsection containing the $750,000 cap) to preserve other exceptions.
Members debated whether to amend the introductory language. Chairman Balsak and others proposed changing the notwithstanding clause to refer only to subsection (b); Leader Lambert instead moved to place the bill at the heel of the calendar to allow staff and the sponsor time to prepare written substitute language. The committee agreed to move the bill to the end of the day's calendar to permit revision rather than adopting immediate language changes.
