PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to House Energy and Commerce
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 1, 2010
Meaningful End to Defensive Medicine & Aimless Lawsuits (MedMal) Act of 2010 - Sets forth provisions regulating lawsuits for health care liability claims related to the provision of health care goods or services.
Sets a statute of limitations of three years after the date of the manifestation of injury or one year after the claimant discovers the injury, with certain exceptions.
Caps the amount of noneconomic damages at $350,000 if a claimant rejects a settlement that meets certain criteria.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits a provider of collateral source benefits from recovering any amount from an award in a health care lawsuit involving injury or wrongful death.
Makes a benevolent gesture or admission of fault that is made by a health care provider or employee to the claimant or the claimant's relative or representative inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability or an admission against interest.
Makes each party liable only for the amount of damages proportional to such party's percentage of responsibility.
Authorizes the award of punitive damages only where: (1) it is otherwise permitted by applicable state or federal law; (2) it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant or deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury the claimant was substantially certain to suffer; and (3) compensatory damages are awarded.
Provides for periodic payment of future damages.
Prohibits a health care provider from being named as a party to a product liability lawsuit for prescribing or dispensing a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medical product.
Prescribes qualifications for expert witnesses.
People & committees
Rep. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA-11] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
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 House 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.5690 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.5690 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.5690 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.5690 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.