PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 2, 2009
Fair Resolution of Medical Liability Disputes Act of 2009 - Prohibits a medical malpractice action from being filed in a state court or a federal court under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction unless: (1) the claim that is the subject of the action has been initially resolved under an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system; and (2) an affected party notifies the appropriate court of the intent to contest the decision and files the action within 90 days after such decision is issued.
Provides: (1) for the payment of an opposing party's court costs and attorneys' fees by the contesting party in the case of a malpractice action brought in court after ADR if the final judgment issued in the action is not more favorable to the contesting party than the ADR decision; and (2) that an uncontested ADR decision shall have the status of a verdict in a court adjudicated action.
Sets forth basic requirements for state ADR systems, including a requirement that they transmit to the state agency responsible for monitoring or disciplining health care providers any findings that a provider committed malpractice. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) certify state ADR systems that meet the requirements of this Act; and (2) establish an alternative federal ADR system for any state that does not establish its own system.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Comptroller General to study the effectiveness of private litigation insurance markets in providing affordable access to courts, evaluating the merit of prospective claims, and ensuring that prevailing parties in "loser pays" systems are reimbursed for attorney's fees.
People & committees
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] · R–SC
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 the Judiciary.
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: Aug 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.2662 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.2662 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.2662 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.2662 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.