Bill
SB 681
The bill expands the health care provider definition to include hospital employees, agents, or contractors providing care in Maryland within the malpractice framework.
Status / key dates
- Introduced: January 26, 2025 (Sen. Charles)
- Assigned to: Judicial Proceedings Committee
- Bill text sets an effective date of October 1, 2025.
- (Fiscal analysis prepared by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services.)
Purpose and intent
- To expand the statutory definition of “health care provider” in Maryland’s health care malpractice provisions so that certain hospital personnel are explicitly included. The change brings specified hospital employees, agents, or contractors within the malpractice claim framework (including HCADRO filing/arbitration procedures).
Key provision(s)
- Amends Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 3‑2A‑01(f) by adding:
- “An employee, agent, or contractor of a hospital who is licensed, certified, registered, or otherwise authorized to render health care services in Maryland” to the definition of “health care provider.”
- Leaves other statutory malpractice procedures (filing with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO), arbitration options, damages caps and limitations, etc.) intact; the primary change is the definitional expansion.
Who is affected
- Included individuals: hospital employees, agents, or contractors who are licensed/certified/registered/authorized to deliver health care in Maryland (e.g., certain technicians, therapists, contracted clinicians who provide direct patient care at a hospital).
- Hospitals and private providers: malpractice claims naming these individuals may proceed under the health care malpractice statutory scheme.
- Maryland Department of Health (MDH)‑operated hospitals and other state entities: because the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA) governs state liability, the bill may bring some MDH‑run hospitals (and therefore the State) more frequently into MTCA claims handled through the State Insurance Trust Fund (SITF).
- Insurers, self‑insured funds, and small businesses that contract with hospitals may experience downstream effects (coverage, defense costs, premiums).
Procedural and fiscal implications
- Malpractice claims against newly included individuals would generally follow existing HCADRO filing and arbitration procedures.
- Fiscal note (Maryland Dept. of Legislative Services):
- Potential increase in special fund expenditures if SITF pays more claims or if litigation increases.
- If SITF claims increase for MDH‑run hospitals, MDH general fund costs could rise via higher SITF assessments.
- No direct revenue impact; Judiciary and HCADRO impacts can be absorbed within current budgets.
- Small businesses that contract with hospitals may face meaningful impacts (e.g., increased liability exposure or insurance costs).
Contextual notes
- Maryland’s malpractice noneconomic damages cap (per fiscal note) was $905,000 for 2025 (increases annually); economic damages remain uncapped. Statute of limitations and HCADRO procedures continue to apply.
- The bill clarifies coverage under the health care malpractice statutory regime; it does not create new procedural mechanisms beyond that definitional change.
Related legislation
- Companion House bills referenced: HB 2827 and HB 926 (per document set).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
