Repeals the collateral source rule in medical malpractice actions.
Summary
House Bill 5903 repeals Rhode Island General Laws § 9-19-34.1, the statute governing the collateral source rule in medical malpractice actions. Under current law, in certain medical negligence cases, a defendant may introduce evidence that the plaintiff received benefits from other sources such as health insurance, disability insurance, workers’ compensation, or similar benefit arrangements. If that evidence is admitted, the plaintiff may also show what they paid to obtain those benefits, and any damages award is reduced by the difference between benefits received and amounts paid to secure them.
By repealing this section, the bill would eliminate that specific statutory framework for medical malpractice cases. The practical effect would be to remove the express authorization for defendants in those cases to present collateral source evidence and to remove the related statutory instructions for reducing damages and foreclosing reimbursement claims by first-party payors under that provision.
Impact
The bill would amend Rhode Island’s evidence law by deleting a medical-malpractice-specific exception to the collateral source rule. This would affect personal injury actions based on professional negligence against physicians, hospitals, clinics, HMOs, dental providers, and related health care entities, and would likely restore the general common-law treatment of collateral source evidence unless another statute applies. It would also eliminate the statute’s provisions addressing damage offsets and the foreclosure of reimbursement liens tied to awards reduced under that section.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to House Judiciary, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears to be a substantive tort and evidence-law change focused on medical malpractice litigation, but the surrounding materials do not show explicit support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether defendants in medical malpractice cases should be allowed to introduce evidence of a plaintiff’s insurance or other benefit payments to reduce damages. Supporters of repeal would generally favor preserving full compensation for injured patients and avoiding reductions based on insurance coverage, while opponents may argue that collateral source evidence prevents double recovery and lowers malpractice costs. The bill also implicates insurers and first-party payors because the current statute addresses reimbursement liens and their foreclosure when awards are reduced.