PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.1572 / 103rd Congress

Medical Care Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1993

See H.R.3600.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 31, 1993

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Grants to States for Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems Title II: Uniform Standards for Malpractice Claims Medical Care Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1993 - Title I: Grants to States for Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to States for the implementation and evaluation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems. Requires the Secretary to: (1) designate each State receiving such a grant as a model ADR State (making such State eligible for a two-year extension); and (2) disseminate information on the ADR systems implemented by such States to other States, health care professionals and providers, and other interested parties. Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop and promulgate standards and regulations necessary to carry out the grant program, including qualification standards that States must meet to receive grants and regulations establishing State data gathering requirements; (2) take into account, in developing qualification standards, specified factors such as the effectiveness of such systems in supporting access to health care, encouraging improvements in the quality of care, resolving claims promptly, and providing predictable outcomes; (3) provide States with technical assistance; and (4) report to the Congress, within four years of the first grant, describing and evaluating the ADR systems implemented. Title II: Uniform Standards for Malpractice Claims - Specifies that, with respect to any health care liability action brought in a Federal or State court and any medical malpractice or medical product liability claim subject to an ADR system: (1) no person may be required to pay more than $100,000 in a single payment in damages for expenses to be incurred in the future, but shall be permitted to make periodic payments; (2) the total amount of damages that may be awarded to an individual and the family members of such individual for non-economic losses may not exceed $250,000; (3) the total amount of damages received by an individual shall be reduced by any other payment that has been or will be made to the individual to compensate such individual for the injury; (4) a claimant's attorney's fees may not exceed 25 percent of the first $150,000 of any award or settlement, or 15 percent of any additional amounts, paid to the claimant; (5) the total amount of punitive damages that may be assessed may not exceed twice the total amount of the damages awarded to compensate the claimant for losses resulting from the injury; and (6) the liability of each defendant for non-economic losses shall be several only and not joint, with each defendant liable only for non-economic losses allocated to the defendant in direct proportion to the defendant's percentage of responsibility. Establishes a two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice and product liability claims, with an exception for minors under age six. Specifies that, in the case of a medical malpractice or product liability claim relating to services provided during labor or the delivery of a baby, if the defendant health care professional did not previously treat the plaintiff for the pregnancy, the trier of fact may not find that the defendant committed malpractice and assess damages against the defendant unless the malpractice is proven by clear and convincing evidence. Bars a defendant from being found to have committed malpractice unless the defendant's conduct at the time of providing the health care services was not reasonable, except where the claimant asserts that the defendant is liable under a strict liability theory. Bars the award of punitive damages with respect to any medical product liability claim alleged against a medical product producer if the drug or device that is the subject of the claim: (1) was subject to approval or premarket approval under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with respect to the safety or performance of the drug or device or the adequacy of the packaging or labeling; (2) was approved by FDA; or (3) is generally recognized as safe and effective pursuant to conditions established by FDA and applicable regulations. Makes an exception in the case of withheld information, misrepresentation, or illegal payment to an FDA official for purposes of securing approval of the drug or device.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Kyl, Jon [R-AZ-4] · R–AZ

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
15 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. See H.R.3600.

  2. Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law.

  3. Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.

  4. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E853-854)

  5. Introduced in House

  6. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.1572 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.1572 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.1572 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.1572 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources