Government Relations Advocacy Update
SUMMER 2026
2026 Mid-Year Legislative Update
In 2026, 46 state legislatures, the District of Columbia, and the United States Congress will hold regular sessions. Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas legislatures do not convene in even numbered years. Ten states, D.C., and Congress are active year-round; however, heading into the midyear elections, there is an incentive for these jurisdictions to slow down business in favor of campaigning.
Most states start session in January, with the crossover deadlines generally occurring in March. Crossover deadlines indicate when a bill must complete its procedural work in either the House or Senate. These deadlines are important because a bill’s likelihood of success is predicated on whether it has made deadline. The bills that fail to meet the crossover deadline usually are considered dead. By the end of the first quarter, the pool of bills that move forward becomes a bit more manageable as legislators and advocates push toward sine die (adjournment), with many legislatures concluding their work by June.
There have been a host of bills expanding healthcare practitioner liability in the areas of reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and sexual assault. For example, in Missouri and West Virginia, legislation was proposed to extend the statute of limitations and remove the noneconomic damages cap for gender-affirming care actions. In Arizona, the legislature considered legislation to adopt strict liability for actions involving gender transition care for minors. We closely track these bills and oppose the expansion of healthcare practitioner liability.
Following are summaries of a selection of the 2026 public policy proposals on our priority advocacy list. Our advocacy efforts on these priority bills include direct lobbying by our in-house Government Relations team, directing the advocacy of our contracted lobbyists, and coordination with diverse coalitions on behalf of our members.
2026 Priority Legislation by State
Damage Cap Legislation
HB 316—Inflation for Damages (Pending): This bill proposes to adjust the maximum damages limits for personal injury and wrongful death claims to account for inflation. The damages cap for all claims arising from a single injury or death is increased from $400,000 or the injured person's life expectancy multiplied by $8,000, whichever is greater, to a new amount that reflects changes in the Consumer Price Index since 1997, which is approximately $825,000. This legislation does not impact medical liability claims; however, if enacted medical liability will next in line for this type of legislative action. Position: Oppose.
SB 29—Wrongful Death (Pending): This bill would remove the sunset provision on CA SB 447 (2021) that allows heirs of a decedent to collect damages for the plaintiff’s pre-death pain and suffering in addition to survivor damages already allowed by current law. This legislation was stopped in 2025, which allowed SB 447 to sunset. The proponents plan to revive the bill this year to effectively double or triple the damages available in wrongful death cases, including cases to which the MICRA statutes apply. TDCG is advocating to defeat this bill or securing an amendment to carve out medical liability cases. Position: Oppose unless amended.
SB 2086—Relating to Claims Against Healthcare Providers (Pending): This bill proposes the following: (1) requires prompt reporting of legal and administrative complaints and claims against a healthcare professional to their respective licensing board, the department of commerce and consumer affairs, and the insurance commissioner; (2) extends the time frame by which a medical tort action can be brought; (3) establishes additional tolling conditions; and (4) increases the cap on damages recoverable for pain and suffering in medical tort actions from $375,000 to $500,000. Position: Oppose.
HF 2040—Damage Caps (Pending): This legislation proposes to repeal the 2023 hard caps on catastrophic injuries ($1M healthcare providers / $2M hospitals) and 2.1% annual increases to the caps. The cap would revert to the $250K cap for personal injury or death in actions against a healthcare provider unless there is a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or death whereby there would be no cap. The bill removes loss of pregnancy as an exception to the $250K soft cap. Position: Oppose.
HB 118—Civil Damages (Pending): This legislation proposes to establish a cap on the amount that can be awarded for general damages in tort claims within Louisiana, limiting such damages to a maximum of five million dollars per claimant. General damages, as defined by the law, include nonpecuniary losses such as pain, suffering, emotional distress, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life, but exclude punitive or exemplary damages. Currently, there is no statutory cap on general damages. Position: Support.
HB 984—Damage Caps (Pending): This legislation proposes to increase the maximum allowable recovery for medical malpractice claims from $500,000 to $750,000. The new cap applies to damages related to injuries or death caused by qualified healthcare providers, excluding future medical care and related benefits. The law specifies that damages for future medical care exceeding the cap will be handled separately, with payments made by the Office of Risk Management regardless of the new limit. Position: Oppose.
SP 564/LD 1347—Maine Tort Claims Act (Pending): This bill proposes to increase the limitation on the award of damages against a governmental entity or its employees, or both, under the Maine Tort Claims Act from $400,000 to $1,250,000 per occurrence. Position: Oppose.
SF 3489—Statute of Limitations, Provider Asset Protection, and Damages Cap (Failed): This legislation proposed to reduce the statute of limitations for medical liability claims from four to two years. In addition, the bill proposed to implement a physician asset protection system like the one passed by Utah and requires providers to carry a policy limit of $1M. Finally, the bill proposed a $500K noneconomic damages cap. Position: Support.
SB 2133—Noneconomic Damages Cap (Failed): This legislation proposed to maintain established monetary limits on noneconomic damages awarded in civil cases of malpractice or breach of standard of care cases against healthcare providers to a maximum cap of $500K. In contrast, for other civil actions, the current cap is set at $1M but would have been raised to $2M. Position: Support.
HB 3225—Catastrophic Personal Injury Definition (Pending): This legislation proposes to amend the state’s catastrophic personal injury by changing the definition to include the loss of one limb instead of the current law of two limbs, thereby expanding the types of injuries that would fall under the higher damages cap. Position: Oppose.
A 3185—Noneconomic Damages Cap (Pending): This legislation proposes to establish a noneconomic damages cap of $250K in medical liability actions. It is unlikely to be set for hearing. Position: Support.
HB 99—Medical Malpractice Changes (Enacted): This medical liability reform law includes a new definition of occurrence, new limitations on punitive damages, and a limitation of what was paid versus what was billed for medical expenses within the PCF, as well as requiring the PCF to pay medical expenses as incurred rather than in a lump sum. Additionally, the bill would allow hospitals to remain in the PCF indefinitely. Prior to this legislation, there were no barriers to alleging punitive damages and no statutory cap on punitive damages. Position: Support.
HB 2932—Damage Caps (Pending): This bill proposes to implement monetary limits on noneconomic damages. Compensation for noneconomic loss is capped at $500,000 unless the plaintiff suffers permanent and severe physical injuries, in which case there is no limit. For permanent mental injuries that severely impair employment or living standards, the cap is set at $1,000,000. Additionally, there are no limits on noneconomic damages if the defendant's actions are deemed to be in reckless disregard for others' rights, grossly negligent, fraudulent, or intentional. Oklahoma currently has a noneconomic damage cap with lower limits, but this cap may or may not be viable under state constitutional law. Position: Support if amended.
HB 4544—Damage Cap Exceptions (Pending): This legislation proposes to provide exceptions to the state’s damage caps for intent to harm, felony convictions, and providing healthcare services while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The language requires a court determination by clear and convincing evidence for intent or alcohol or drug influence, or that the provider pleads guilty or is convicted of a felony. Position: Oppose.
HB 2585/SB 2621—Damage Caps for OB-GYN (Failed): This bill proposed adding healthcare liability actions arising from obstetric or maternity negligence resulting in the death or permanent injury of a pregnant or postpartum woman to the state’s definition of catastrophic injuries. Noneconomic damages are limited to $1 million or less for catastrophic injuries in Tennessee. Position: Neutral.
HB 427—Medical Liability Reform (Pending): This bill proposes to establish medical liability tort reforms, including limiting noneconomic damages to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for entities and establishing pretrial screening panels to streamline the resolution of claims. Wrongful death claims are capped at $500,000. Position: Support.
SB 536—Medical Malpractice Cap (Enacted): This bill began as an attempt to exclude prejudgment interest from the total cap on damages in medical malpractice cases. It was amended by the House to add language that: (1) more than doubled the cap on damages from $2.7M to over $6M; (2) more than doubled the statute of limitations from 2 years to over 4 years; and (3) created an illusory personal asset protection provision if providers carried malpractice insurance at the cap amount when it was unclear if such insurance was available. With our advocacy, the bill was converted into a data call bill, where medical malpractice insurers and self-insured hospitals are required to provide insurer financial, claims, and proprietary data from 2025 to the Bureau of Insurance. Position: Neutral as amended by legislature and Governor.
Other Priority Legislation
SB 130—Medical Spas Deceptive Trade Practices (Pending): This bill proposes to create a new cause of action under the state’s consumer protection act for conduct that typically falls under medical negligence, including the failure to document poor patient reactions to medication. This bill was recently filed and assigned to committee. TDCG opposes this legislation unless it is amended to remove the private right of action. Position: Oppose unless amended.
HB 1553—Truth in Damages (Failed): This bill proposed to limit evidence related to medical expenses in personal injury and wrongful death cases in Florida for past medical expenses to what was paid for future medical expenses. It would have allowed evidence to include the amount healthcare coverage would pay, the claimant’s share, or, if no coverage exists, a percentage of Medicare or Medicaid rates (120% of Medicare or 170% of Medicaid rates). Position: Support.
HB 6003—Wrongful Death (Failed): This bill was the 2026 version of previously filed “free kill” legislation. It proposed to remove restrictions on certain beneficiaries, such as adult children and parents of adult children, from recovering damages for medical negligence resulting in death. Position: Oppose.
SB 1506—Civil Litigation (Failed): This bill proposed to require courts to review monetary damage awards to determine whether the award was excessive or inadequate. Position: Oppose.
SB 1596—Medical Malpractice Liability Coverage (Failed): This bill proposed to raise the amount of medical liability coverage required for physicians and osteopathic physicians performing surgery in ambulatory surgical centers in Florida. The coverage amount would have been raised from $250,000 per claim to $1 million per claim, with an annual aggregate minimum ranging from $750,000 to $3 million. Position: Oppose.
HB 1417—Tort Reform Review (Failed): This legislation proposed to create a “Tort Reform Commission” to do a comprehensive review of the state’s civil litigation statutes including wrongful death, immunities, noneconomic damages, and public nuisance actions. Position: Monitor.
HF 2126—Dental Claims Statute of Limitations (Pending): This legislation proposes to extend from two years to five years the statute of limitations for a civil action to be brought against a dentist, dental surgeon, dental hygienist, or dental assistant for injury or death arising out of dental care. Position: Oppose.
SF 586—Third Party Litigation Funding (Pending): This legislation proposes a comprehensive regulatory scheme for consumer litigation funding. It prohibits lenders from offering referral fees, consideration from attorneys and healthcare providers for new clients, false advertising, influence or any other direction with respect to the claim, knowingly paying for court or attorney fees, and funding from foreign entities. Importantly, it requires the consumer to provide notice within 30 days to any party and insurer regarding the existence of a lending contract. Position: Support.
SB 398—Qualified Witnesses (Pending): This legislation proposes to tighten the requirements for admitting expert opinions by requiring the demonstration that a witness’s specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence. Position: Support.
SB 413—Anti-anchoring (Pending): This legislation proposes to prohibit counsel from suggesting an amount of damages for noneconomic loss in civil actions. Position: Support.
SB 426—Third Party Litigation Funding (Pending): This legislation proposes to amend the states TPLF statute by making it clear that plaintiffs are obligated to pay back a lender only from the proceeds of the award and to enhance the attorney general’s ability to enforce the law. Position: Support.
SB 467—AI and Medical Decisions (Pending): This legislation proposes to enact “The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Decisions Transparency Act.” It proposes significant limitations on the use of AI by health insurers and that the medical necessity of a service must be made only by a licensed healthcare provider. Position: Monitor.
HB 1002—Recoverable Medical Expenses (Pending): This bill proposes to establish limits on the evidence and amount recoverable for past medical expenses in personal injury claims, specifying that recoverable amounts are restricted to what health insurance would have paid and the claimant’s share, or the amount paid by a third party if rights are transferred. The law requires claimants to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages and mandates that all medical charges be itemized and coded according to accepted billing practices. Position: Support.
HB 385/SB 269—Rebuttal Presumption of Medical Bills (Pending): This legislation proposes to establish a rebuttable presumption in an action for personal injury or wrongful death that a medical bill from a healthcare provider, or an agent of the healthcare provider, is authentic, fair, and reasonable if the bill was properly provided in discovery. It also proposes that a party may overcome the presumption that a medical bill is authentic, fair, and reasonable by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the medical bill, or any charge in a medical bill, is not authentic, is unfair, or is unreasonable. Position: Support.
HB 906/SB 871—Punitive Damage Awards (Pending): This bill proposes to repeal Maryland’s long-standing high standard of actual malice for the award of punitive damages. It seeks to lower the standard to ordinary gross negligence (implied malice) and allows punitive damages for “a failure to exercise even slight care” or “a pattern of repeated conduct.” The bill includes a 50% surcharge on punitive damage awards payable to the state and to be dedicated to K-12 public education as part of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. Position: Oppose.
SF 2391—Patient Compensation Fund (Failed): This legislation proposed to implement a patient compensation fund for medical malpractice awards above a provider’s coverage. The bill does not include specifics regarding the limits a provider needs to carry and that detail would be left to rulemaking. Position: Monitor.
HB 1116—Noneconomic Damages Interest (Failed): This legislation proposed to add a compound interest rate of eight percent (8%) to noneconomic damage awards. Currently, there is no statutory interest rate specifically applied to such damage awards. Position: Oppose.
SB 2132—Wrongful Death (Failed): This bill proposed to expand the scope of claims that could be made following a person's death to allow for the recovery of expenses or damages incurred by the deceased prior to their death. Position: Oppose.
HB 1646/SB 1180—Collateral Source Rule (Pending): This bill proposes to amend the state’s collateral source rule. The bill allows parties in actions seeking to recover for personal injury, bodily injury, or death to introduce evidence of the actual cost of medical care or treatment. If a defendant paid all or part of a plaintiff's special damages before trial, the plaintiff could not recover that portion from the defendant. The actual cost of medical care and discounts could be used as evidence for potential future treatment costs. Position: Support.
HB 2164—Wrongful Death Beneficiary Clarification (Pending): This bill proposes to clarify who can bring a wrongful death action in situations where a parent has had their parental rights terminated by allowing the sister or brother of the deceased to bring a claim. Currently, siblings can bring a claim; however, the ambiguity created by terminated parental rights is being addressed in favor of the siblings. Position: Monitor.
HB 2255—Expert Witnesses (Pending): This legislation proposes to clarify that an expert witness can testify in the form of an opinion or if the proponent of the testimony demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the qualifications regarding the expert testimony will be met. Position: Support.
HB 2714/SB 1513—Comparative Negligence (Pending): This legislation proposes that individuals in injury, property damage, or wrongful death cases can recover damages even if they are partially at fault. However, any award would be reduced by the person’s percentage of fault. If a plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault, they would be barred from recovering any damages. The measure requires courts or juries to determine the total amount of damages and assign a percentage of fault to each party involved. In cases with multiple defendants, each defendant would be responsible only for paying their proportionate share of the damages. The proposed law would apply to causes of action arising on or after August 28, 2026. Position: Support.
HB 2888—Medical Monitoring Civil Actions (Pending): This legislation proposes that in any civil action, defendants will not be required to pay damages or provide any other type of legal, injunctive, or equitable relief for a plaintiff's future medical surveillance, screening tests, or monitoring procedures unless the plaintiff proves that the future medical surveillance, screening tests, or monitoring procedures sought are directly related to, and necessitated by, a presently existing and diagnosable physical disease or injury of the plaintiff, are distinct from the medical surveillance, screening tests, or monitoring procedures recommended in the absence of the preexisting physical disease or injury and related exposure, and the plaintiff's existing physical disease or injury was caused by the defendant. Position: Support.
SB 1598—AI Medical Malpractice (Pending): This legislation expands physician liability and proposes that a medical malpractice claim includes when a healthcare provider negligently uses, selects, or implements or unduly, detrimentally, or erroneously relies upon artificial intelligence in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of a patient and such negligence or reliance directly causes or contributes to the plaintiff's injury. The action must be brought within two years from the date of the discovery of the alleged negligence or reliance, or from the date on which the patient in the exercise of ordinary care should have discovered the alleged negligence or reliance, whichever date occurs first. Position: Oppose.
LB 676—Nurse Midwives Liability (Pending): This legislation proposes to include certified nurse midwives in the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act for purposes of including them in the state’s cap on total damages and excess coverage through the state fund. It also removes the requirement for midwives to have a practice agreement with a collaborating physician. Position: Monitor.
LB 914—Physician and Physician Assistant Liability (Pending): This legislation proposes to repeal existing law that holds physicians automatically liable for each negligent act or omission of a physician assistant. The bill provides that licensed physician assistants would be liable for the care they provide, and physicians and physician groups would remain liable for their own actions under standard malpractice law. Position: Monitor.
S 3119—Wrongful Death Expansion (Pending): This legislation proposes to allow recovery for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, and loss of companionship in wrongful death action. Position: Oppose.
HB 195—Collection of Medical Malpractice Judgments (Failed): This bill proposed to prohibit the collection or enforcement of judgments against a healthcare provider’s personal income or assets for medical malpractice claims, provided the provider met certain insurance or qualification requirements. Position: Support.
SB 175—Medical Malpractice Punitive Damages (Failed): This bill proposed to prohibit the awarding of punitive or exemplary damages in medical malpractice cases within the state of New Mexico. Position: Support.
HB 746—Limited Liability for Nurses (Pending): This bill proposes to provide limited immunity for nurses in medical malpractice cases when acting under supervision of a healthcare provider. Position: Monitor.
SB 2166—Truth-In-Damages (Pending): This bill proposes to limit the admissibility of damages related to medical services to only the actual amounts paid for medical services to be admissible in court, rather than the billed amounts. Position: Support.
HB 7033—Post-Judgment Interest (Pending): This bill proposes to change post-judgment interest from 12% to the 52-week Treasury Bill Rate which is about 3.5%. Position: Support.
HB 7207—Wrongful Death Limitations (Pending): This bill proposes to expand the statute of limitations from 3 to 10 years for the wrongful death of a child in utero or within six months after birth. Position: Oppose.
HB 7548/SB 2054—Expressions of Apology (Pending): These bills propose to make expressions of apology inadmissible as evidence. Position: Monitor.
HB 7646—Medical Malpractice Review Panel (Pending): This bill proposes to create a medical malpractice tribunal that occurs 15 days after the defendant files an answer. Only the plaintiff must present proof that medical negligence occurred. The three-person panel decides if the complaint is credible or an unfortunate event. If it is determined that the plaintiff’s case was an unfortunate event, the plaintiff must post a $6,000 bond to proceed with the case. Position: Support.
HB 7749—Collateral Source Rule (Pending): This bill proposes to repeal the state’s current collateral source statute which requires juries to reduce the amount of a judgment to the actual amount owed by plaintiff to cover medical costs. This would effectively end truth in damages in the state. Position: Oppose.
HB 4670—Time-Limited Demand (Pending): This bill proposes to allow a plaintiff to submit written, time-limited demands for settlement. Position: Oppose.
SB 930—Truth in Damages (Pending): This bill proposes to put the burden of proving the reasonable value of medically necessary care on the plaintiff. It also limits evidence of the cost of medical care services provided to what was charged, or what is reasonably expected to be charged for future medical care. Position: Support.
HB 1023—Liability Protection for Nurses in Ambulances (Enacted): This law provides liability protection for nurses working inside an ambulance. Position: Support.
HB 1153—Healthcare Provider Rights (Failed): This bill proposed to provide for a healthcare provider's right of conscience, where providers may not be compelled to participate in or fund medical services that conflicted with their ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. Position: Monitor.
SB 211—Tort Amendments (Failed): This bill proposed to prohibit the introduction of evidence related to the existence, amount, or payment of collateral sources, such as third-party payments, insurance, or healthcare provider liens during trial proceedings. It would have overturned a Utah Supreme Court decision that limited evidence of medical damages to what was paid, not billed. Position: Oppose.
SB 280—Truth in Damages (Failed): This bill proposed to limit the damages a plaintiff could recover for medical expenses to the actual amounts paid, owed, or necessary for future treatment. This included amounts paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff, those covered by health plans, and payments obtained through arrangements such as letters of protection or factoring companies. Position: Support.
HB 1496—Patient Medical Record Costs (Failed): This bill proposed to lower the costs for patients to obtain medical records to a maximum of $50, no matter the actual cost of producing the records. Position: Oppose.
HB 1507—Limiting Healthcare Nondisclosure Agreements (Failed): This bill proposed to eliminate nondisclosure clauses in medical malpractice settlement agreements retroactively moving forward from the effective date. This bill also sets $10,000 penalty per violation. Position: Oppose.
HB 2255—Third Party Litigation Finance (Failed): This bill proposed to require third party litigation funding disclosure. Position: Support.
HB 4873—Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations for Minors (Failed): This bill proposed to remove the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases based upon care of minors. Position: Oppose.
AB 225—Venue (Vetoed): This legislation proposed that when determining whether a county is a proper venue based on a defendant’s residence or business activities, a court may not consider the involvement of an insurance company named solely because it either issued a policy to a policyholder facing a claim or has a right to reimbursement arising from payments to its policyholder. For purposes of establishing where a business entity resides or conducts substantial business, the entity was deemed to reside at its place of incorporation or organization and conduct substantial business only in the county of its principal place of business. Position: Support.
SB 459—Expert Witness Testimony (Enacted): This law clarifies two small but important aspects of Wisconsin’s expert witness statute. It provides that the party seeking admission of expert testimony has the initial burden to show that the proposed testimony is sufficiently reliable to present to the jury and clarifies that each of the proposed expert opinions must individually meet the threshold of reliability before that opinion may be presented to a jury. Position: Support.
©2026 The Doctors Company. This document is Proprietary. The information contained in this document is not intended to be and does not constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and material are for general information purposes only. This is not an exhaustive list of laws and regulations applicable to this subject matter; others may apply.
