Provides that statements by a health care provider regarding the unanticipated outcome of a patient's medical care and treatment shall be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability or as evidence of an admission.
S0066 creates a new rule of evidence for medical malpractice and related civil disputes involving health care facilities and providers. It provides that statements, gestures, writings, or conduct expressing apology, regret, sympathy, condolence, compassion, benevolence, or concern made by a provider, facility, employee, or agent to a patient, the patient’s relative, or the patient’s representative after an unanticipated medical outcome may not be used as evidence of an admission of liability or an admission against interest.
The bill defines key terms such as “healthcare facility,” “healthcare provider,” “relative,” “representative,” and “unanticipated outcome.” It also makes clear that the protection is limited to expressions of apology or sympathy: any separate statement of fault, negligence, liability, or culpable conduct remains admissible, and the protected statements may still be used for other purposes besides proving liability. The act would take effect immediately upon passage.
This bill would amend Rhode Island’s evidence law in chapter 9-19 by adding a specific evidentiary privilege-like protection for apology and sympathy statements in health care cases. In practice, it would affect malpractice litigation, arbitration, and other judicial or administrative proceedings by limiting the use of compassionate communications as proof of fault, while leaving substantive admissions of negligence or liability untouched. The primary parties affected are hospitals, clinics, physicians, other licensed providers, patients, and their families in disputes arising from unexpected medical outcomes.
The available voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support, passing the Senate 28-9 on June 12, 2025. The text and caption indicate a policy goal of encouraging open, humane communication between providers and patients after adverse outcomes without automatically increasing legal exposure. No committee transcript is available, but the broad margin of passage suggests the measure was viewed positively by a majority of senators.
The main point of contention is the balance between encouraging apology and empathy in medical settings and preserving plaintiffs’ ability to prove liability in malpractice cases. Supporters are likely to view the bill as promoting transparency, compassion, and early de-escalation after medical errors or unexpected outcomes. Opponents may worry that even limited protection could make it harder for injured patients to build a case or could be used to blur the line between sympathy and responsibility, although the bill expressly preserves statements of fault or negligence as admissible evidence.