Rhode Island House Bill H7749

Rhode Island 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/26
• Refer: 2/12/26

Caption

RELATING TO COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEDURE -- PROCEDURE GENERALLY --, EVIDENCE

Summary

H7749 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 professional negligence cases against physicians, hospitals, clinics, HMOs, dental providers, and related health care entities, a defendant may introduce evidence that the plaintiff received benefits from sources such as health insurance, disability insurance, workers’ compensation, or other third-party payors. If that evidence is introduced, the plaintiff may respond with evidence of the amounts paid to secure those benefits, and any damages award is reduced by the difference between benefits received and amounts paid for coverage. By repealing this section, the bill would eliminate that statutory framework for medical malpractice cases. The practical effect would be to remove the express authorization for defendants to present collateral source evidence and to remove the related statutory reduction procedure and lien foreclosure language tied to those awards. The bill would take effect immediately upon passage, changing the evidentiary and damages rules applicable to covered health care negligence actions in Rhode Island.

Impact

The bill would amend Rhode Island evidence law by deleting the only statutory provision specifically addressing the collateral source rule in medical malpractice actions. This would affect litigation involving licensed physicians, hospitals, clinics, HMOs, professional service corporations providing health care services, dentists, and dental hygienists, as well as insurers and other first-party payors whose benefits and reimbursement rights are referenced in the repealed statute. The repeal would likely shift how damages are proven and calculated in malpractice cases and could affect settlement and trial strategy in those actions.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a targeted tort-reform bill with no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials. The caption and explanation are straightforward and indicate a clear legislative purpose: to repeal the collateral source rule in medical malpractice actions. Because there is no transcript or voting history, there is no documented public sentiment in the supplied record, but the proposal itself suggests an interest in limiting or changing damages recovery in malpractice litigation.

Contention

The main point of contention would likely be whether juries in medical malpractice cases should hear evidence of insurance or other benefits the plaintiff received. Supporters of repeal may view the current rule as allowing double recovery and inflating malpractice awards, while opponents may argue that collateral source evidence unfairly reduces compensation for injured patients and benefits defendants and insurers. Another likely issue is the effect on first-party payor liens and reimbursement rights, since the current statute expressly forecloses those liens when awards are reduced under the rule.