PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 7, 1994
Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1994 - Limits to $250,000 the total amount of noneconomic damages that may be awarded to a claimant and members of the claimant's family for losses resulting from the injury which is the subject of a medical malpractice liability claim or action (claim), regardless of the number of parties against whom the claim is brought or the number of actions brought. Provides for a reduction of the total amount of damages received by an individual under such claim by any other payment made to compensate for the injury. Specifies that, in any such claim in which future economic damages exceed $100,000, a defendant shall be permitted to make payments periodically, rather than in a single, lump-sum payment, based on when the damages are found likely to occur. Permits a court to waive such provision if the court determines that it is not in the plaintiff's best interests to receive payments on a periodic basis. Prohibits an attorney from charging or collecting a contingency fee for services rendered in connection with such a claim in excess of: (1) 25 percent of the first $150,000 (or portion thereof) recovered, plus; (2) ten percent of any amount in excess of $150,000 recovered. Makes this Act applicable to any such claim brought in State or Federal court, except with respect to a claim for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death to the extent that title XXI of the Public Health Service Act applies. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) preemption; and (2) effect on sovereign immunity and choice of law or venue.
People & committees
Rep. Ballenger, Cass [R-NC-10] · R–NC
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 Economic and Commercial Law.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2255)
Referred to the House Committee on 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 26, 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.5253 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.5253 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.5253 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.5253 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.