Bills › 88th General Assembly
Where it is now
- Done: IntroducedFebruary 11, 2020
- Done: SubcommitteeFebruary 11, 2020
- Done: Senate committeeFebruary 19, 2020
- Skipped: Passes the SenateContinued as SF 2338
- Next: House committee
- Next: Passes the House
- Next: To the Governor
- Next: Signed into law
Became SF 2338 → Its progress continues under the new number. Go to SF 2338 What’s a funnel?
What’s in it
AI summary People suing healthcare providers for injuries or death would no longer be able to ask a jury to increase the $250,000 limit on money for things like pain and suffering. The law would also limit evidence about medical bills to only show the amounts that were actually paid or are truly owed.1
Read the official explanation
This bill relates to civil actions, including the total amount of noneconomic damages recoverable in a civil action for personal injury or death against a health care provider and evidence offered to prove past medical expenses. _____ a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or death, which warrants a finding that imposition of such a limitation would deprive the plaintiff of just compensation for the injuries sustained. Current law also provides that the limitation on damages shall not apply as to a defendant if the defendant’s actions constituted actual malice. The bill eliminates the exception to the limitation of $250,000 that would allow the jury to determine if the imposition of such a limitation would deprive the plaintiff of just compensation for the injuries sustained. Under the bill, “noneconomic damages” means damages arising from pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of chance, loss of consortium, or any other nonpecuniary damages. The bill also provides that evidence offered to prove past medical expenses shall be limited to evidence of the amounts that were actually paid to satisfy bills that have been satisfied and evidence of the amounts necessary to satisfy the bills that have not yet been satisfied. The bill does not impose an affirmative duty to seek a reduction in billed charges to which the party is not contractually entitled.
Changed since by amendments H-8204, H-8173; see Amendments.
Senate subcommittee
Named February 11, 2020. On February 17, 2020 it recommended passage.
Three legislators hear a bill first and recommend what the committee should do; it’s the best time to weigh in. How to take part
Family tree
Study bill
88th General Assembly
Similar bills
- HSB 596 HSB 59688th General Assembly · IntroducedVery similar
- SSB 3085 SSB 308588th General Assembly · In committeeVery similar
Matched by wording or an identical title.