PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 10, 2007
Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2007 or the MCAP Act - Sets forth provisions regulating lawsuits for health care liability claims related to the provision of health care services.
Sets a statute of limitations of three years after the date of manifestation of injury or one year after the claimant discovers the injury, with certain exceptions.
Requires a court to impose sanctions for the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits noneconomic damages to $250,000 from the provider or health care institution, but no more than $500,000 from multiple health care institutions. Makes each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party's percentage of responsibility.
Allows the court to restrict the payment of attorney contingency fees. Limits the fees to a decreasing percentage based on the increasing value of the amount awarded.
Prescribes qualifications for expert witnesses.
Requires the court to reduce damages received by the amount of collateral source benefits to which a claimant is entitled, unless the payor of such benefits has the right to reimbursement or subrogation under federal or state law.
Authorizes the award of punitive damages only where: (1) it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a person acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant or deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury the claimant was substantially certain to suffer; and (2) compensatory damages are awarded. Limits punitive damages to the greater of two times the amount of economic damages or $250,000.
Prohibits a health care provider from being named as a party in a product liability or class action lawsuit for prescribing or dispensing a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prescription drug, biological product, or medical device for an approved indication.
Provides for periodic payments of future damage awards.
People & committees
Sen. Ensign, John [R-NV] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
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: Feb 10, 2026. 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 S.243 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 S.243 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 S.243 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 S.243 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.