MALPRACTICE/MEDICAL: Provides relative to medical malpractice and the limitation of recovery
Summary
HB 984 increases Louisiana’s statutory cap on recoverable damages in medical malpractice cases. Under current law, the total amount recoverable for injury to or death of a patient by qualified providers is generally limited to $500,000, excluding future medical care and related benefits. The bill raises that cap to $750,000, while keeping the separate treatment of future medical care and related benefits in place.
The measure amends multiple provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act and the Malpractice Liability for State Services to conform the higher cap throughout the statutes. It updates the language governing judgments, settlements, and claims against the state and the patient’s compensation fund or office of risk management so that the new $750,000 limit applies consistently, again excluding future medical care and related benefits from the cap.
Impact
HB 984 would directly change Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:1231.2, 40:1231.3, and 40:1237.1 by increasing the non-future-medical-damages cap for malpractice claims from $500,000 to $750,000. This would affect malpractice claims against qualified healthcare providers and claims involving state services, potentially increasing exposure for providers, insurers, the patient’s compensation fund, and the state’s risk management system. Future medical care and related benefits would remain payable outside the cap.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes, the available record suggests a straightforward policy proposal with a clear purpose: increasing compensation available to malpractice claimants. The bill’s digest frames the change as a direct increase in the recovery limit, and there is no evidence in the provided materials of formal opposition or support expressed in committee. The overall tone of the measure is technical and remedial rather than expansive beyond the cap increase.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the policy choice to raise the malpractice cap, which typically pits patient advocates and some claimants seeking greater recovery against physicians, hospitals, insurers, and state risk-management interests concerned about higher liability costs, insurance premiums, and potential impacts on access to care. A secondary issue is that the bill preserves the separate treatment of future medical care, so debate may focus on whether the increase should apply only to general damages or whether the current structure remains appropriate. No specific objections or amendments are shown in the provided committee materials.
Provides for recoverable medical expenses, limitation upon jury trials and admissibility of evidence in civil actions. (8/1/25) (OR INCREASE LF EX See Note)