Skip to main content
H 7749Civil Procedure

Courts and Civil Procedure - Procedure Generally - Evidence

Repeals the law allowing medical malpractice defendants to lower damage payments based on the victim's insurance coverage.

Held for study
Population
Affected
15
Email Legislator
Introduced Feb 12, 2026Committee House Judiciary

Plain-English Summary

This legislation repeals a specific section of Rhode Island law regarding medical malpractice lawsuits. Previously, if a patient sued a medical provider for negligence, the provider could introduce evidence showing that the patient’s insurance had already paid the medical bills. The court could then reduce the financial payout to the patient by that amount. By repealing this law, the state returns to a standard where a medical provider cannot use a patient's insurance coverage as a reason to pay less in damages for injuries caused by professional negligence.

For younger readers

Imagine a doctor made a mistake that hurt you, and your family's insurance paid for the hospital to fix it. Under the old rules, if you took the doctor to court, the judge could say, "Since your insurance already paid the bill, the doctor doesn't have to pay you that money." This bill changes that rule. Now, if a doctor hurts you, they have to pay for the damage they caused, even if you have insurance that helped you at first. It stops the doctor from paying less just because you had insurance.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups
Medical malpractice plaintiffsPhysicians and DentistsHospitals and ClinicsMedical Liability InsurersHealth Insurance Companies
Impacted communities
All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

None Likely

Estimated cost
None
Estimated revenue
None

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints
For Progressives
  • Ensures that victims of medical negligence receive full accountability and compensation from wrongdoers, rather than allowing corporations to pay less simply because the victim was responsible enough to carry health insurance.
  • Prevents negligent medical providers and their insurers from benefiting financially from the social safety net and benefits that the injured party paid for through their own premiums.
  • Increases the financial consequences for professional negligence, which serves as a stronger deterrent against substandard care and promotes better safety protocols in the healthcare system.
  • Likely to increase medical malpractice insurance premiums for physicians and hospitals, which are often passed down to patients, potentially raising overall healthcare costs for the community.
  • Could inadvertently reduce access to healthcare in low-income areas if rising liability costs force practitioners to close clinics or stop offering high-risk procedures to avoid potential lawsuits.
  • May result in a system where a significant portion of the increased financial awards goes to legal fees and insurance subrogation rather than directly benefiting the injured patient's long-term welfare.
For Conservatives
  • Upholds the sanctity of private contracts by ensuring that individuals who pay for insurance retain the full benefit of their policy, rather than subsidizing the liabilities of a negligent party.
  • Reinforces the principle of personal responsibility by requiring those who cause harm to pay the full cost of their actions, without relying on government-created statutory loopholes to reduce their debt.
  • Simplifies the judicial process by removing a specific government intervention in civil litigation, allowing standard common law principles of damages to apply without complex statutory calculations.
  • Eliminates a tort reform measure that kept litigation costs down, likely emboldening trial lawyers to file more lawsuits and driving up the cost of doing business for medical professionals.
  • Will almost certainly result in higher medical malpractice insurance rates, placing a financial burden on private practices and potentially forcing doctors to leave the state.
  • Allows for "double recovery" where a plaintiff can get paid by their insurance and again by the lawsuit for the same bills, which violates the traditional legal principle that damages should only make a person whole, not profit them.

Votes

Loading votes...

Full Bill Text

Changes to existing Rhode Island law · 19 deletions

SECTION 1. Section 9-19-34.1 of the General Laws in Chapter 9-19 entitled "Evidence" is hereby repealed. 9-19-34.1. Collateral source rule in medical malpractice actions. In the event the defendant so elects, in a legal action based upon a cause of action arising after January 1, 1987, for personal injury against a licensed physician, hospital, clinic, health maintenance organization, professional service corporation providing health care services under chapter 5.1 of title 7, dentist, or dental hygienist based upon professional negligence, the defendant may introduce evidence of any amount payable as a benefit to the plaintiff as a result of the personal injury pursuant to any state income disability or workers’ compensation act, any health, sickness or income disability insurance, accident insurance that provides health benefits or income disability coverage, and any contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse the cost of medical, hospital, dental, or other health care services. Where the defendant elects to introduce such evidence, the plaintiff may introduce evidence of any amount which the plaintiff has paid or contributed to secure his or her right to any insurance benefits concerning which the defendant has introduced evidence. When such evidence is introduced, the jury shall be instructed to reduce the award for damages by a sum equal to the difference between the total benefits received and the total amount paid to secure the benefits by the plaintiff or the court may ascertain the sum by special interrogatory and reduce the award for damages after verdict. Whenever an award is so reduced, the lien of any first party payor who has paid such a benefit against the judgment shall be foreclosed and the plaintiff shall have no legal obligation to reimburse the payor.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage.