WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 379

An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in registration of vehicles, further providing for vehicles exempt from registration; and, in licensing of drivers, further providing for persons exempt from licensing.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Scott Conklin and 11 co-sponsors

HB 379 raises the punitive-damages standard to clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard and caps punitive awards at 30 times the state median income.

Referred to Transportation
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 379

Summary — HB 379: Medical Malpractice — Punitive Claim Evidence

Status: Action postponed indefinitely (June 3, 2025)
Introduced: Filed Nov 12, 2024; LFC analysis last updated Mar 20, 2025
Subject area: Health & Health Facilities / Medical Malpractice

Purpose / Intent

HB 379 would amend the Medical Malpractice Act to (1) raise the standard a plaintiff must meet to recover punitive damages in a medical malpractice action and (2) place a statutory cap on the maximum punitive damages available.

Key provisions

  • Standard of proof: Requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the healthcare provider’s acts were done “with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.”
  • Punitive damages cap: Limits punitive damages to no greater than 30 times the state median annual household income at the time the award is made. (For reference, U.S. Census 2023 median household income in New Mexico was $62,125; 30× that amount = $1,863,750 — the bill ties the cap to the then-current median.)
  • Effective date: The bill contains no explicit effective date; absent one it would take effect 90 days after adjournment (documents cite June 20, 2025 as a likely date).
  • Relationship to compensation funds: The Patient’s Compensation Fund (PCF) does not pay punitive damages (noted in fiscal analysis).

Who would be affected

  • Plaintiffs in New Mexico medical malpractice suits (higher burden to obtain punitive awards; lower maximum recoverable punitive damages).
  • Healthcare providers and institutions (potentially reduced exposure to very large punitive awards).
  • Malpractice insurers and premiums (could be affected over time, though effects are uncertain).
  • Courts and litigators (changes to pleading/proof requirements and potentially to post-trial adjustments).

Fiscal and policy impacts

  • Fiscal impact: Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) and other fiscal notes describe the impact as indeterminate. Punitive damages are not paid from the PCF, so direct PCF budget effects are not expected.
  • Policy considerations: Supporters argue caps and higher proof requirements may reduce malpractice liability pressure and insurance costs, especially for smaller/rural providers. Opponents and analyses note constitutional concerns: U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence has indicated punitive awards exceeding 10× compensatory damages may raise due-process issues. The bill does not specify whether juries may be informed of the statutory cap — a technical concern noted by the Office of Superintendent of Insurance (recommended clarifying instruction to avoid juror influence).

Related legislation

LFC analysis cites several related bills addressing other aspects of the Medical Malpractice Act (caps on compensatory damages, allocation of punitive damages, procedural/administrative changes). House Bill 374 and HB 378, and several Senate bills, are noted as related.

Procedural status

HB 379 was considered during the 2025 session but, per provided records, action was postponed indefinitely on June 3, 2025.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.