H7749 removes §9-19-34.1 of the Rhode Island General Laws — the statute that currently permits defendants in medical malpractice cases to introduce evidence of benefits paid to the plaintiff (workers’ compensation, disability, health insurance, group benefits, etc.) and to reduce a jury’s damage award by the net value of those benefits. The statute also contained a clause foreclosing a first‑party payor’s lien if the award were reduced and stated that the plaintiff had no obligation to reimburse the payor.
Repealing the section eliminates that statutory mechanism.
The change matters because it alters who ultimately bears the economic consequences of medical injuries: injured plaintiffs would no longer face a statutory offset at trial, but payors’ contractual and equitable reimbursement rights remain potentially enforceable under other law (including federal statutes such as ERISA and Medicare recovery rules). The repeal will affect settlement strategy, potential double‑recovery disputes, malpractice insurer exposure, and how courts treat payor liens and subrogation in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals §9-19-34.1, removing the statutory permission for defendants in medical malpractice actions to introduce evidence of first‑party benefits and to reduce jury awards by the net amount of those benefits. It also removes the statute’s provision that foreclosed a payor’s lien when an award was reduced.
Who It Affects
Medical malpractice plaintiffs and plaintiff counsel, malpractice insurers and health care providers (physicians, hospitals, clinics, HMOs), and first‑party payors (private insurers, workers’ compensation funds, disability plans) that currently rely on the statute to protect or foreclose reimbursement rights.
Why It Matters
By eliminating the statutory offset, the bill changes the distribution of recovery between injured parties and payors and will reshape bargaining at settlement and trial. It also raises immediate legal questions about how state law will interact with federal subrogation and reimbursement regimes (ERISA, Medicare/Medicaid).
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At present Rhode Island statute §9-19-34.1 lets a defendant in a medical malpractice suit introduce evidence that the plaintiff received benefits tied to the injury — such as payments from workers’ compensation, private health insurance, disability insurance, or group health plans — and asks the jury (or the court via special interrogatory) to reduce the damage award by the net benefit amount (benefits received minus what the plaintiff paid to secure them). The statute also foreclosed a first‑party payor’s lien on a judgment when an award was reduced and said the plaintiff had no obligation to reimburse the payor.
H7749 deletes that entire statutory provision. The immediate legal effect is that defendants lose the statutorily authorized path to offset a jury award at trial based on first‑party benefits.
Because the foreclosure clause goes away too, the statutory protection that barred payors from enforcing liens against a reduced judgment disappears. Those two changes operate together: plaintiffs face larger raw awards at trial, but payors are no longer statutorily foreclosed from asserting reimbursement claims under contract or equitable subrogation.The repeal does not itself create new federal rights or extinguish existing ones.
Federal law — including ERISA plan terms, Medicare Secondary Payer recovery requirements, and federal lien statutes — continues to govern where it already applies. That means some payors (for example, ERISA plans or the federal government) may still pursue reimbursement or enforce liens regardless of the state repeal, and state courts will need to reconcile the absence of §9-19-34.1 with those existing claims.Practically, expect shifts in litigation and settlement behavior: plaintiffs may press for higher jury verdicts when benefits cannot be offset at trial, while payors and defendants may increase litigation over subrogation and lien enforcement or press for contractual clauses that preserve reimbursement rights.
Malpractice carriers and providers will need to factor the change into reserves and negotiations; courts will face questions about admissibility of evidence regarding payments for other purposes (such as mitigation or apportionment) even if they may no longer be used to reduce damages under the repealed statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals Rhode Island General Laws §9-19-34.1 in its entirety, removing the statutory mechanism that allowed defendants to offset jury awards by first‑party benefits.
The repealed statute expressly covered benefits from workers’ compensation, state income disability, health/sickness insurance, accident insurance providing health benefits, and group contracts to provide or reimburse health care.
Under the current statute, if an award were reduced by those benefits, the statute foreclosed the lien of any first‑party payor and relieved the plaintiff of reimbursement obligations; the repeal removes that statutory foreclosure.
H7749’s effective date is upon passage, so the repeal would apply immediately to cases after the law takes effect; it does not itself alter federal reimbursement rules (for example, ERISA or Medicare), which operate independently.
The repeal leaves open how courts will treat payor claims—contractual subrogation, equitable reimbursement, and federal statutory recovery will become the primary avenues for payors seeking repayment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Full repeal of §9-19-34.1 (collateral‑source provision for medical malpractice)
This clause removes the statute that currently permits defendants in medical malpractice suits to introduce evidence of a variety of first‑party benefits and to reduce damages by the net amount of those benefits. Practically, the repeal eliminates the state’s statutory offset and the accompanying instruction mechanism that courts used to reduce jury awards. It also erases the statutory statement that foreclosed a payor’s lien and barred plaintiff reimbursement when an award was reduced; without that language, payors retain whatever contractual or equitable remedies exist elsewhere in law.
Effective date: upon passage
The bill takes effect immediately on passage. That means the statutory authority for offsets disappears prospectively as soon as the governor signs the bill (or it otherwise becomes law). It does not by itself resolve questions about pending cases, retroactivity, or how existing liens recorded under the old statute will be handled; courts and litigants will need to litigate those transitional issues unless addressed administratively or by further legislation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Medical malpractice plaintiffs: They stand to receive larger unreduced jury awards at trial because defendants can no longer rely on the state statute to offset damages using first‑party benefits.
- Plaintiff-side attorneys: Higher unreduced awards increase potential recoveries and may strengthen plaintiffs’ bargaining positions in settlement negotiations.
- Patients whose benefits lack enforceable subrogation rights: Individuals whose insurance contracts or programs do not create strong reimbursement rights will see more of their awards retained, because the statutory foreclosure that previously reduced awards and forbade reimbursement no longer applies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Medical malpractice insurers and health care providers: They face greater exposure at trial and likely higher settlement demands, which may lead to increased premiums or changes in underwriting and risk management.
- First‑party payors (private insurers, workers’ comp funds, disability carriers): They lose the certainty of the statutory foreclosure and may need to litigate or pursue contractual remedies to recover payments, increasing administrative and litigation costs.
- State courts and litigants generally: Expect additional litigation over subrogation, lien priority, admissibility of payment evidence for non‑offset purposes, and the interaction between state repeal and federal recovery regimes, which will consume judicial resources and complicate case management.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: protecting injured plaintiffs from having their recoveries reduced at trial (and thereby maximizing immediate compensation) versus avoiding duplicative recovery and preserving payors’ contractual and statutory rights to reimbursement; the repeal removes a statutory compromise and leaves litigants and courts to reconcile competing claims — a trade‑off between clearer trial outcomes and more post‑judgment litigation.
The repeal resolves the single, explicit statutory path for defendants to offset jury awards, but it does not settle whether or how payors can secure repayment afterward. Removing the foreclosure language revives — rather than creates — disputes about contractual subrogation, equitable reimbursement, and statutory lien enforcement.
In many cases payors (including ERISA plans and the federal government for Medicare) retain independent, and often superior, avenues to recover benefit payments; the repeal will force more of those disputes into state court, potentially prompting conflict‑of‑law and preemption litigation.
Another practical tension concerns double recovery versus net recovery fairness. The statute as written both allowed offsets and simultaneously extinguished a payor’s lien, a combination that prevented duplicative recoveries while protecting plaintiffs from repayment obligations.
Repeal returns the system to one where plaintiffs receive unreduced awards at trial but may later face reimbursement claims — a sequencing that can create uncertainty for plaintiffs expecting to keep jury awards, and increase post‑judgment litigation over lien enforcement. Finally, the repeal leaves open evidentiary questions: even if first‑party benefits cannot be used to reduce damages under state statute, courts may admit evidence of payments for other purposes (e.g., to attack credibility, prove mitigation, or allocate fault), and judges will need to craft careful jury instructions to avoid inadvertent double counting.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.