PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 3, 2009
Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make grants to five states to establish pilot programs under which: (1) each medical malpractice case is heard in the first instance by a medical tribunal composed of a state trial court judge, a physician, and a lawyer; and (2) the tribunal shall hear all evidence that would be admissible in state court and determine whether it would be sufficient to support a finding for the plaintiff. Permits the plaintiff to pursue a case through the state's usual judicial process: (1) if the tribunal determines that the evidence would be sufficient; or (2) if the tribunal determines that the evidence would be insufficient, but only after filing with the clerk of the court a bond in an amount determined by the state trial court judge.
Permits the Secretary to award a grant to only a state that: (1) has an average cost of medical malpractice insurance that exceeds the national average; and (2) has not placed a limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases or established a medical tribunal program similar to the one described in this Act.
Directs the Secretary to collect from each state that receives grant funds, after the end of the third fiscal year, certain data regarding: (1) changes in the average cost of medical malpractice insurance, the number of physicians actively practicing medicine, the number of medical malpractice liability insurance carriers, the amounts paid by such carriers pursuant to settlements or judgments, and the percentage of medical malpractice cases settled prior to trial; and (2) the number of cases that were considered meritorious by the tribunal, and the number that were considered nonmeritorious, that were tried to a judgment and the number of such judgments that were for the plaintiff.
People & committees
Rep. Lee, Christopher J. [R-NY-26] · R–NY
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: Jan 2, 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.4007 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.4007 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.4007 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.4007 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.