PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H11149-11155)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 10, 2007
Medical Justice Act of 2007 - Sets forth provisions regulating civil actions for an injury or death as the result of health care.
Limits the non-economic damages that an individual may recover to: (1) $250,000 from health care practitioners; (2) $250,000 from any single health care institution; and (3) $500,000 from the class of liable health care institutions.
Limits the total damages, including compensatory damages, that a person may recover from any single liable health care practitioner to $1,400,000.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides that an insurer of a health care practitioner or health care institution is not liable for damages in excess of the liability of the insured for rejecting a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits.
Sets forth requirements for qualified expert reports.
Allows periodic or accrual payment for future damages.
Prohibits a jury from awarding punitive or exemplary damages against a health care practitioner or health care institution unless the jury is unanimous.
Makes each person liable only for a proportionate share of the total damages that directly corresponds to that person's responsibility.
Makes a person seeking damages liable for litigation costs incurred after rejection of a settlement offer if such person receives a judgment at trial that is significantly less favorable than the terms of the settlement offer.
Requires claims to be brought: (1) within two years after the act or omission if the affected individual is over the age of 12; or (2) before an affected individual under 12 attains the age of 14. Sets the statute of repose at no later than 10 years after the act or omission.
Makes a health care practitioner or health care institution that provides emergency health care on a Good Samaritan basis immune from liability for damages caused by that care, except for willful or wanton negligence or more culpable misconduct.
People & committees
Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H11149-11155)
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.3509 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.3509 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.3509 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.3509 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.