PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 8, 2003
Common Sense Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2003 - Establishes an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure for all health care liability actions, except an action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death to the extent that title XXI of the Public Health Service Act applies.(Sec. 3) Establishes a statute of limitations for health care liability actions of one year from the date on which the alleged injury was discovered or should reasonably have been discovered, but in no case more than three years after the date the alleged injury occurred.(Sec. 4) Makes a defendant in any health care liability action liable only for the amount of noneconomic damages attributable to such defendant. Limits total noneconomic damages for an injury to $250,000.Outlines requirements for, and limitations on, the award of punitive damages. Permits periodic payments of any damages awarded for future economic and noneconomic loss exceeding $50,000.Permits defendants to introduce evidence of collateral source payments.(Sec. 5) Specifies limits to contingent fees.(Sec. 6) Declares that any ADR used to resolve a health care liability action or claim shall contain provisions for a statute of limitations, noneconomic damages, joint and several liability, punitive damages, a collateral source rule, periodic payments, and limitations on contingent fees which are identical to the provisions of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Toomey, Patrick J. [R-PA-15] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 18, 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.321 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.321 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.321 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.321 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.