Skip to main content
H 7646Civil Procedure

Courts and Civil Procedure - Procedure in Particular Actions - Rhode Island Medical Liability Actions

Creates a screening tribunal for medical malpractice suits; plaintiffs with weak cases must post a $6,000 bond to proceed.

Held for study
Population
Affected
15
Introduced Feb 11, 2026Committee House Judiciary

Plain-English Summary

This legislation establishes a mandatory medical malpractice tribunal to screen lawsuits against healthcare providers before they proceed to a full trial. This panel, consisting of a Superior Court judge, an attorney, and a doctor, reviews the plaintiff's evidence to determine if there is a legitimate question of liability. If the tribunal finds the case insufficient, the plaintiff must post a $6,000 bond to continue the lawsuit. This bond covers the defendant's legal costs if the plaintiff loses. The bill also allows the tribunal's findings to be used as evidence in a subsequent trial.

For younger readers

This bill changes how people can sue doctors if they think a doctor made a mistake that hurt them. Before a regular trial happens, a special group called a tribunal will look at the case. This group includes a judge, a lawyer, and another doctor. They decide if the case is strong enough to go forward. If they think the case is weak, the person suing has to pay $6,000 to keep going. This is to stop people from suing when it was just an accident and not really the doctor's fault.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups
Healthcare ProvidersMedical Malpractice PlaintiffsAttorneysSuperior Court JudgesMedical Malpractice Insurers
Impacted communities
All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

There is a significant constitutional risk regarding the "Open Courts" provision and the right to a jury trial. By allowing the tribunal's finding to be admissible at trial, the bill may unconstitutionally prejudice the jury. Furthermore, while the bond can be reduced, the explicit prohibition on eliminating the bond for indigent plaintiffs may violate equal protection or due process by placing a price tag on access to the courts for those with valid claims but no funds.

Estimated cost
Amount unknown
Estimated revenue
None

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints
For Progressives
  • May help reduce the backlog in the court system, allowing other cases involving civil rights or social justice to be heard more expeditiously.
  • Ensures that complex medical cases are reviewed by experts early in the process, which could theoretically validate legitimate claims of malpractice more quickly.
  • Could potentially lower overall healthcare costs for the community by reducing the financial strain of defending against non-meritorious lawsuits.
  • Creates a significant financial barrier to justice by requiring a $6,000 bond, effectively preventing low-income individuals from pursuing valid claims even if the bond is reduced (as it cannot be eliminated).
  • Undermines the right to a fair trial by allowing the tribunal's findings to be admissible as evidence, which could unfairly prejudice a jury against the plaintiff.
  • Places disproportionate power in the hands of a small, unelected panel—including a medical professional protecting their own industry—rather than trusting a diverse jury of peers.
For Conservatives
  • Protects doctors and healthcare businesses from the financial burden of frivolous lawsuits, which helps stabilize the medical industry and insurance rates.
  • Imposes financial responsibility on plaintiffs through the bond requirement, discouraging abuse of the legal system for personal gain.
  • Streamlines the judicial process by filtering out weak cases early, potentially saving taxpayer money associated with long court trials.
  • Creates a new layer of government bureaucracy and intervention in the private resolution of disputes between individuals and providers.
  • Increases state spending by requiring taxpayer funds to compensate tribunal members and administer the new hearing process.
  • Interferes with the traditional judicial process by mandating a state-appointed panel rather than allowing the market and existing court procedures to resolve liability.

Votes

Loading votes...

Full Bill Text

Changes to existing Rhode Island law · 45 additions

SECTION 1. Title 10 of the General Laws entitled "COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEDURE — PROCEDURE IN PARTICULAR ACTIONS" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following chapter: 10-19.1-1. Definitions.

(1) “Healthcare provider” means those persons defined in § 5-37.3-3.

(2) “Tribunal” means the panel established by § 10-19.1-2. 10-19.1-2. Medical malpractice tribunal.

(a) Every action for malpractice, error, or mistake against a healthcare provider shall be heard by a tribunal consisting of a justice of the superior court, who shall preside; an attorney licensed to practice law in this state; and a healthcare provider licensed to practice medicine in this state. Each such action shall be heard by said tribunal within fifteen (15) days after the defendant’s answer has been filed.

(b) The attorney and healthcare provider shall be appointed by the presiding justice. The healthcare provider shall, where feasible, be selected from the same or a substantially similar specialty as the defendant healthcare provider, as selected by the superior court justice in a manner the justice determines fair and equitable. Where there are codefendants representing more than one field of health care, the superior court justice shall determine in the justice's discretion who shall represent the healthcare field on the tribunal. 10-19.1-3. Tribunal hearing and standard of review.

(a) The tribunal shall conduct a hearing at which the plaintiff shall present an offer of proof.

(b) The offer of proof shall consist of such evidence as would be admissible at trial.

(c) The tribunal shall determine whether the evidence presented, if properly substantiated, is sufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry or whether the plaintiff’s case is merely an unfortunate medical result.

(d) The tribunal shall not resolve disputed issues of fact, assess credibility, or determine damages. 10-19.1-4. Tribunal finding for the plaintiff. If the tribunal determines that the plaintiff’s offer of proof is sufficient, the action shall proceed in the superior court in the normal course without further restriction. 10-19.1-5. Tribunal finding for the defendant; Bond requirement.

(a) If the tribunal determines that the plaintiff’s offer of proof is insufficient, the plaintiff may proceed with the action only upon filing a bond in the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000), conditioned upon payment of the defendant’s taxable costs if the plaintiff does not prevail.

(b) Upon a showing that the plaintiff is indigent or that the bond requirement would create an undue hardship, the court may reduce the amount of the bond but may not eliminate the requirement.

(c) Failure to post the required bond within thirty (30) days of the tribunal’s finding shall result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. 10-19.1-6. Effect of tribunal proceedings. The finding of the tribunal shall be admissible as evidence at trial. 10-19.1-7. Costs and compensation.

(a) Tribunal members other than the presiding justice shall be compensated at a rate established by the chief justice of the supreme court.

(b) Costs associated with tribunal proceedings shall be taxed as costs in the action at the discretion of the court. 10-19.1-8. Rules. The chief justice of the supreme court shall promulgate rules and fee schedules necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage and shall apply to all medical malpractice actions filed on or after January 1, 2027.