PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 10, 2009
Medical Liability Procedural Reform Act of 2009 - Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to states to develop, implement, and evaluate health care tribunals. Defines "health care tribunal" to mean a trial court or administrative tribunal: (1) the sole function of which is to adjudicate disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers; (2) to which all or a portion of such disputes within a jurisdiction are assigned; and (3) the judges for which have health care expertise and render decisions about the standard of care in dispute adjudication, with reliance on independent expert witnesses commissioned by such court or tribunal.
Permits the Attorney General to provide technical assistance to states to: (1) develop common definition, formats, and data collection infrastructure for states to use in reporting in order to facilitate aggregation and analysis of data within and between states; and (2) provide guidance about the identification and selection of heath care tribunal judges and independent expert witnesses, compensation of injured patients, and clinical resources relating to the standard of care.
Requires the Attorney General to contract with a research organization to evaluate and report on the effectiveness of grants awarded, to include an analysis of the effect of such grants on: (1) the number, nature, and costs of health care liability claims; (2) the liability environment; (3) health care quality; and (4) patient safety.
People & committees
Rep. Thornberry, Mac [R-TX-13] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.2787 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.
Examine H.R.2787 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.
Examine H.R.2787 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.
Examine H.R.2787 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.