Medical Justice Act of 2011 - Sets forth provisions regulating civil actions for an injury or death as the result of health care.
Sets forth limits on: (1) the non-economic damages that an individual may recover from health care practitioners and health care institutions, and (2) the total damages that a person may recover from any single liable health care practitioner.
Declares that an insurer of a health care practitioner or health care institution that rejects a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits is not, by reason of such rejection, liable for damages in excess of the liability of the insured.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
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 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.
Sets forth a time frame within which claims related to any health care act or omission must be brought.
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.
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.896 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.896 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.896 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.896 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.