Medical malpractice bill clears Utah Legislature with changes, but opponent says it still limits protections for victims
After multiple changes were made to HB503, it passed through the final vote in the House on Thursday by a vote of 47-27. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Katy Hall, R-South Ogden, will now go to the governor's desk for his signature.
The original bill capped damages that could be awarded in medical malpractice cases that didn't result in death. This provision proved controversial and was eventually taken out.
'I think what we've come up with is really good, because we've protected those who are legitimately harmed by malpractice. We want them to be taken care of,' Hall said.
Despite the changes, there are still people who believe this bill will limit the amount of money victims can receive.
Hall started working on this bill after she was approached by a constituent who works in a clinic in Davis County who had concerns about frivolous malpractice lawsuits.
'He's worried about losing physicians because of the cost of medical malpractice, and not only the costs in money, but also the costs in just what it costs to the people who are being sued,' Hall said.
Hall said they worked through this bill to make sure that they were protecting the victims as well as the doctors in medical malpractice cases.
'So if they have a catastrophic, heaven forbid, a catastrophic event that is life altering, they can still sue the malpractice insurance for hospitals or physicians wherever, whoever was involved to get what they need, so that still is protected,' Hall said.
Hall, whose husband is a physician, shared that because of the high cost of liability insurance, the state is losing doctors, especially in small town areas where the number of physicians is more limited. Because of this she wanted to set protections for these doctors so that they could stay in their jobs.
'I'm a nurse, and I understand both sides, I mean, we need our physicians to stay in practice, right?' Hall said. 'Because even if someone gets hurt, someone still has to help them along the way too, other physicians. And I believe that most of our physicians are really, really good at their jobs.'
HB503 would require plaintiffs to pay the defendant's attorney fees if the court finds that their claim doesn't have merit, in an effort to decrease frivolous lawsuits.
Hall shared that sometimes when a lawsuit is brought up, defense lawyers will say that they're going to go after the doctor's home and other assets so doctors get scared and decide to settle. The bill would prevent this from happening by no longer allowing lawyers to go after the physician's assets.
It would create a framework for determining economic damages based on payments made for medical expenses. The bill would require the Division of Professional Licensing to put together yearly reports to summarize malpractice claims and outcomes around Utah.
Under HB503, physicians would be required to hold an insurance policy of at least $1 million.
The bill originally had a $1 million cap for malpractice cases that did not result in death, but that portion of the bill was removed after victims testified about the high cost of medical care that can be incurred by those who live after a botched medical procedure.
Eric Nielson, a medical malpractice lawyer who has been practicing in Utah for 40 years, is opposed to the bill and the idea of capping how much money people can receive in damages after being injured during a medical procedure.
'Because it's blatantly unconstitutional and it's anti-American,' he said.
Though the bill sponsor removed the specific language about a cap, Nielson said the bill would still limit how much plaintiffs can receive in their cases.
'They just don't want to call it a cap. It has the net effect of creating a cap. And just think about how unfair this is,' Nielson said.
Nielson sees a cap resulting from those suing not being able to go after a doctor's assets and because of the required $1 million insurance policies.
Nielson said he believes the bill is meant to benefit insurance companies.
But Hall denied those claims, saying, 'I run bills for constituents. I don't run bills for lobbyists or for big groups like that.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jasmine Crockett unleashes on Ghislaine Maxwell talking to Trump DOJ before Congress: ‘Out of jail for free'
Rep. Jasmime Crockett wants Ghislaine Maxwell — who is serving a 20-year sentence for aiding sex trafficking financier Jeffrey Epstein — to testify before Congress before she speaks under oath to the Trump Justice Department. US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, will meet with Maxwell on Thursday in Florida, where she is serving out her two-decade sentence for scheming with the late pedophile power-player to sexually exploit and abuse young women and girls. The meeting comes just a day after the House Oversight Committee, on which Crockett sits, voted to subpoena Maxwell. On Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer issued a subpoena and set Maxwell's deposition date for Aug. 11. 'I don't know that we'll get anywhere, but I know if there's anybody that I want to talk to her, it is us — and not the administration — because at least if she comes before the committee, even if it's behind closed doors, it will be bipartisan,' Crockett, a frequent Trump antagonist, told The Independent. 'It won't just be one side able to ask questions, it'd be both sides, whereas the administration, they're a bunch of thugs,' she railed. 'And frankly, if it means that she can engage in a coverup, he'll most likely let her out of jail free. He's let people out of jail for far less.' This comes after the Department of Justice released a two-page memo on July 6 saying that Epstein, the convicted pedophile, had no 'client list' and died of suicide in his New York City jail cell, where he was found hanged by bed sheets. But Crockett, who spoke to The Independent before Comer issued his subpoena, also cautioned that she did not know if they would actually hear testimony from the once high-flying former socialite Maxwell. 'I don't know if she has appeals that are pending, and I'm sure that her attorneys will have some issues, some questions surrounding so it's more complicated than just subpoenaing her,' the Democrat said. 'We can subpoena all we want to. We have had a number of transcribed interviews as well as depositions over the last two weeks, and frankly, a lot of them ended with nothing because people invoked privilege and things like that.' Crockett has become a fundraising dynamo because of her combative style of questioning on the Oversight Committee and her willingness to joust with Republicans in the majority. But she recently lost her bid to replace the late Gerry Connolly (D-VA) as the top Democrat on the committee to Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA). Garcia told The Independent that subpoenaing Maxwell does not mean the committee trusts her to be truthful. 'She's a documented liar, she's obviously done an enormous amount to harm young girls and and and has an interest, of course, in, in being free,' Garcia said. 'We should still want to have her come testify in front of oversight in the Congress, but, but we should just be very we should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people.' The House of Representatives broke a day early after the House Rules Committee ground itself to a halt because Democrats continued offering amendments to release files related to Epstein. In an attempt to mollify Democrats and some conservatives, Republicans proposed a non-binding House resolution to get the Department of Justice to release files. In addition, Rep. Thomas (R-KY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have a discharge petition, which would force a vote and circumvent Speaker Mike Johnson, to release files related to Epstein. Massie, a critic of Trump, accused Johnson of covering for the president. 'He doesn't want a paper-thin sliver of daylight between him and the president, and so that's why he's avoided taking even the symbolic vote on the non-binding resolution,' Massie told The Independent. Trump, a friend of Epstein's for many years before a falling out that appears to have come before it was publicly known the financier was being investigated over his sex trafficking, has criticized his supporters and others for focusing on the Epstein case. He also vehemently denied a story in The Wall Street Journal that he sent Epstein a note for the disgraced financier and predator's 50th birthday party and also filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the newspaper and its owners News Corp and Rupert Murdoch, among others.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Massie warns blocking Epstein vote in the House could be political liability for GOP in midterms
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday criticized the push to force a vote in the U.S. House on releasing more federal files pertaining to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as "reckless," while the measure's co-sponsors fired back against Republican Party leadership. "House Republicans insist upon the release of all credible evidence and information related to Epstein in any way," Johnson, R-La., said on NBC News. "But we are also insisting upon the protection of innocent victims," Johnson continued. "And our concern is that the ... discharge petition is reckless in the way that it is drafted and presented, it does not adequately include those protections," he added, referring to the measure introduced by Reps. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif. Meanwhile, Massie and Khanna took to the airwaves on Sunday to defend their bill — and criticize the Republican leadership, whom they see as standing in the way of holding a vote on the measures. Massie and Khanna both repudiated the allegations that releasing the Epstein files would hurt victims of the financier and convicted sex abuser. In an interview on NBC News, Massie said that Johnson was making a "straw man argument" when the speaker said that the bill does not include protections for victims. "Ro and I carefully crafted this legislation so that the victims' names will be redacted and that no child pornography will be released," Massie said. The lawmaker's comments underscore the ongoing divisions within the GOP over the Epstein files, which continue to fuel conspiracy theories among the party's MAGA base and infuriate some of President Donald Trump's strongest supporters. On Friday, Trump deflected questions about Epstein, a former friend. Epstein died from suicide while in jail weeks after being arrested on child sex trafficking charges in 2019. "I have nothing to do with the guy," Trump said of the man he had socialized with for years before a falling out in the mid-2000s with the convicted pedophile. The Trump administration has faced growing backlash in recent weeks after the Justice Department walked back on earlier plans to release the files related to Epstein's case. Massie also criticized Johnson on Sunday for beginning its August recess early in the U.S. House, avoiding being forced to take the vote on the motions related to the Epstein files. "The question is, why isn't Mike Johnson having this vote? Why did he send us home early?" Massie said on ABC News. He also warned of the political implications if Johnson does not hold a vote on the bill. "I'll tell you what's politically going to be a liability is, if we don't vote on this, and we go into the midterms and everybody ... they just check out because Republicans didn't keep their promise," he said. "We'll lose the majority," he continued. Massie said that he thinks pressure will build to hold a vote on it through the August recess period. Some Democrats, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) are also backing the bill. Massie was also asked how he would react if Trump granted convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell some form of clemency. "I don't think she deserves that or needs that," Massie said on ABC News, adding that "it's hard to believe that she, herself, and Epstein did these crimes by themselves," which means it's "time to find out who else was involved," by evaluating documents, bank records and others including plea bargains previously under seal. In recent days, Maxwell was granted limited immunity by the Justice Department to answer questions about the Jeffrey Epstein case. This type of immunity allowed Maxwell to answer questions from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, without fear that the information she provided could later be used against her in any future cases or proceedings. When Johnson was asked what he thought of a possible pardon for Maxwell, he reiterated that the decision is ultimately up to Trump. "Obviously that's a decision of the president," Johnson said, adding, "that's not my lane."
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up
Outside groups are raising concerns that Democrats risk violating the Voting Rights Act with redistricting plans, creating a new problem for the party as it seeks to answer GOP efforts to redistrict its way to more power. Democrats say they have to take action to draw new House districts in states they control in response to power plays by a Trump-driven GOP in Texas and other states. But the tit-for-tat has left groups leaving the door open to litigation. They also are making a moral case, arguing Democrats are thwarting the democratic process. 'This is dead wrong from a democracy perspective, I think it's very problematic for Democrats from a political strategic perspective,' explained Dan Vicuna, director of voting and fair representation at Common Cause. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the only Democratic governor so far to signal he's considering several ways to counter the GOP's efforts in Texas. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Newsom said any move by California 'is predicated on Texas moving forward' with its own redistricting plan, which some have seen as a way for the Lone Star State to make it more likely to hold on to five House seats. Several other Democratic governors, including Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, Phil Murphy of New Jersey and JB Pritzker of Illinois have left the door open to possibly changing their maps. The GOP may also not be done. The White House is reportedly pushing Missouri to consider redrawing its map. Civil rights and voting groups are worried actions by both parties could undermine or weaken the political power of historically marginalized minority communities. The issue is a thorny one for Democrats, who have positioned themselves as the prodemocracy party and championed racial justice initiatives. At the same time, Democratic states just like Republican states have been sued by civil rights groups over Voting Rights Act violations. Both Democrats and Republicans have also been found guilty of creating gerrymandered maps. 'We have sued both Democrats and Republicans on these issues,' said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'So yes, we are concerned that when leaders of either party seek to take maximum advantage, partisan advantage of redistricting, they often neglect, if not ignore, the imperatives of the Voting Rights Act with respect to reliably Democratic voting groups.' Some groups are also frustrated given efforts by blue states to move beyond gerrymandering. 'Independent commissions like the gold standard in California were created specifically to avoid what's being considered here, which is voting maps drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbent politicians and political party interests to the exclusion of community needs and community feedback,' Vicuna said. California Common Cause was intimately involved in the creation of California's independent commission. It could be difficult for some Democratic-held states to answer Texas. Several would likely need to change their state constitution and work around their respective redistricting commissions. Should the Lone Star State craft new House lines, John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, in a statement said they would be met 'with a wall of resistance and a wave of legal challenges.' His statement did not address Democratic-led states mulling their own midcycle redistricting. Democrats argue that if Republicans are headed down that road, nothing should be off the table for them as well. 'Republicans should be careful what they ask for,' Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, told The Hill in a statement. 'And if they go down this path? Absolutely folks are going to respond across the country. We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people.' Democrats are also leaning into the issue of democracy, saying the longevity of the country is at stake if the party does not respond. Newsom painted the situation in grim terms, saying on Friday, 'I believe that the people of the state of California understand what's at stake. If we don't put a stake into the heart of this administration, there may not be an election in 2028.' 'We can sit back and act as if we have some moral superiority and watch this 249, almost 250-year experiment be washed away,' Newsom said. 'We are not going to allow that to happen. We have agency, we can shape the future.' Civil rights and voting-focused groups, however, are concerned about the ramifications midcycle redistricting could have moving forward, including the possibility of what was once considered a decennial process after each U.S. census turning into a cyclical issue. 'One of the concerns that we have is, even if blue states have power and have a majority in their legislature to redraw maps, our concern is that this could set a bad precedent, because those states could, at the same time, flip in the future,' said Jose Barrera Novoa, vice president of the far west for the League of United Latin American Citizens. 'And the same thing is going to happen where … other parties are going to look to redraw the map midcycle or even quarterly. Who knows?' he asked. 'It's all hypothetical, yet it's still very possible.' Not only could a potential redistricting tit-for-tat raise questions over whether this could be repeated in the future, experts also worry about the financial toll it could take on their resources and voters themselves. 'These are judges managing these cases, hearing these cases. Many of these people are paid out by state funds, and federal cases, of course, are also paid by voters directly,' explained Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, noting cases that use taxpayer funds. 'Do we really want to spend this time doing this highly unusual activity when we're all going to have to pay for it?'
