Skip to main content
S 3189Civil Procedure

Courts and Civil Procedure - Procedure Generally - Evidence

This bill repeals a law that allowed medical malpractice damages to be reduced by a patient's health insurance benefits.

Held for study
Population
Affected
15
Email Legislator
Introduced Apr 3, 2026Committee Senate Judiciary

Plain-English Summary

This bill repeals a specific law related to medical malpractice lawsuits. Previously, doctors or hospitals being sued for malpractice could show the jury that the injured person's medical bills were already paid by health insurance or workers' compensation, which would reduce the amount of money the healthcare provider had to pay in damages. By repealing this rule, the injured person can seek the full amount of damages from the healthcare provider who caused the injury, regardless of what their insurance has already covered.

For younger readers

Imagine someone gets hurt by a doctor by mistake and sues them. Before, if the hurt person's health insurance paid for their hospital bills, the doctor wouldn't have to pay as much money to fix their mistake. This bill changes the rules so the doctor has to pay for the full cost of the mistake, even if the hurt person had insurance that helped them out. It makes sure the person who caused the accident is fully responsible for paying for the damage they caused.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups
Victims of medical malpracticePhysicians and healthcare providersMedical malpractice insurance companiesHealth insurance companiesPersonal injury attorneys
Impacted communities
All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

None Likely. This bill simply repeals a statutory exception to the common law collateral source rule in civil litigation. It does not implicate free speech, due process, or unreasonable searches and seizures.

Estimated cost
None
Estimated revenue
None

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints
For Progressives
  • Holds negligent healthcare corporations and professionals fully accountable for their actions by preventing them from using a patient's own insurance benefits to reduce the damages they must pay.
  • Protects the financial interests of injured patients, ensuring they receive the full compensation they deserve without being penalized for having the foresight to carry health insurance.
  • Promotes systemic fairness in the legal system by treating medical malpractice the same as other personal injury cases, removing special legal protections previously granted to the medical industry.
  • May lead to increased medical malpractice insurance premiums for doctors and hospitals, which could be passed down to patients and make healthcare less affordable for low-income communities.
  • Could potentially incentivize healthcare providers to practice "defensive medicine" or leave the state, reducing the availability of critical medical services for vulnerable populations.
  • By removing the provision that blocked insurance liens, injured individuals might now have to hand over portions of their malpractice settlement to large corporate health insurers.
For Conservatives
  • Reinforces individual responsibility and the rule of law by ensuring that the party at fault for medical malpractice bears the full financial burden of the damages they caused.
  • Restores traditional property and contract rights by allowing health insurance companies to recover costs (subrogation) from the responsible party rather than having their liens automatically blocked by the state.
  • Removes a government-imposed distortion in the legal system, allowing standard free-market legal principles and the traditional collateral source rule to apply uniformly to all civil injury cases.
  • Increases the financial risk and liability exposure for healthcare businesses, doctors, and hospitals, potentially hurting the medical industry's ability to operate freely and profitably.
  • Could lead to higher malpractice insurance costs and encourage frivolous or financially motivated lawsuits, enriching trial lawyers at the expense of productive healthcare professionals.
  • May result in plaintiffs receiving a "double recovery" (getting paid by both their insurance and the defendant for the same medical bills), which contradicts conservative principles of economic efficiency.

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.