Judiciary Committee- House

We only have one bill that we're going to here today it's house bill fourteen eighteen. Represent Richards Richmond you can't have props. You know that. House Bill fourteen eighteen will be the only bill that we have on the agenda today. I have been handed an amendment. To the bill representative Gazaway the bill has been called are you offering an amendment to the bill. I'm going to hold off at this time and offering the amendment madam chair thank you okay. I represent Richmond you're recognized to present your bill please introduce yourself and have your guest introduce himself for the record and you may proceed thank you representative Richmond district fifty two. And thank you for permission to allow my guest Mister Allen here is down thank you madam chair members of the committee Justin Allen a partner with the law firm of Wright Lindsey and Jennings here in Little Rock. Mill fourteen eight eight fourteen eighteen. You know. Everybody here has been hearing about this bill has been going on so now it's finally in front of us and I just want to tell you some of the things about the bill what it does and what it doesn't do. Because and I'll try to be brief because I know there's probably a hundred people signed up to speak for. And against this bill and so we'll try to get to them and get through this so again the title is an act to establish recovery of damages for necessary medical care treatment or services rendered more specifically this bill deals with the recovery damages for the cost of medical care in injury personal injury lawsuit the language reads as fall recovery of damage under subsection a of this section for necessary medical care necessary medical treatment or unnecessary medical services received includes only those cost only those cost actually paid by on behalf of the plaintiff or that remains unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party is legally responsible so what is HB fourteen eighteen do. It makes clear that in a personal injury case the plaintiff recovery for medical service is what was actually paid all required to be paid. Most of the time medical providers discounted bill and accept something less as for payment for services rendered nevertheless Arkansas courts allow the plaintiff to recover the billed amount even though something less was paid this started about nineteen ninety eight with the lawsuit against Montgomery Ward in that. The money was discounted the cost was discounted but yet. The court when handled by war the first my I'm out the large amounts so this has been going on forever it's been going on since about nineteen ninety eight. That results in found money for the plaintiff because he or she has recovered amounts for medical services that nobody actually paid. What does fourteen eighteen not do. First it doesn't impact any other category of damages it does nothing to impact that plate this recovery of the following all future medical cost us to stab us to trial all lost wages past and future All property damages all non economic damages including past and future pain and suffering scars and disfigurement a survivor's mental anguish loss of life and punitive damages none of that is affected by this bill. It is limited to the medical cost the actual cost. Again this bill we are simply saying that when it comes to pass medical bills you recover what was actually paid or still required to be paid second it does nothing to a plaintiff's ability to recover amounts paid for medical care by collateral source if a plaintiff's medical expenses were paid by health insurance Medicaid Medicare or workers compensation the plaintiff will still recover all those amounts and will place those proceeds directly in his or her pocket. The bill is modeled on the Texas law that passed over twenty years ago in interpreting and applying that law the Texas Supreme Court has held up payments by the plaintiff insurer are still recoverable and the jury will be told that insurance paid it simply says the recovery is what was actually paid by the plaintiff or his or her insurance for claims that the bill will in furlough unfairly deprive an injured plaintiff of the benefits of a discount negotiated by the plaintiffs insurance carrier both an insurance company and a medical provider have their reasons for negotiation negotiating a lesser amount it happens a lot and I submit the final amount paid reflects the true value of those services hence that is what should be recovered. That said the plane for absolutely get the benefit of his or her insurance because the insurance is paying the bill not the plaintiff and the plaintiff still gets to recover that amount and keep it for himself in other words the plaintiff will pay nothing for medical care but will nevertheless we cover the full amount paid some might argue that still result in a windfall again there are people on my side of this issue that will say that's still too much but we're not addressing that in this bill that's not part of it. In that account but that you know and and it will continue to happen in the future but this bill is talking about the medical costs that were listed in the actual language of what we're proposing. Again. All going to stop here and and open it up for questions. Members do we have any questions at this point. Seeing the questions you're recognized to Percy. Are you through with your agent or not you know I'm a book in a couple of the notes here but I'm going to wait and and go ahead and close at this moment for the event and allow the questions of things that happened representative Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative Richmond you just said there was uh and I missed it is why I want to see if you can go back and read what you just said that your party things or the people that are behind you would think it's not enough what what were you talking about there's there's some that do not think that this goes far enough. They think that they're still going to be a windfall in some of the awards and things like that but this bill. We don't care we're focused on what the language of this bill does so there's even more that some people would think that they that this bill should do but we're saying no we're going to limit the medical the medical costs and what is actually paid so do you think that this is a stair step for the next step I don't see opening for the next opportunity no I I don't I think that if this bill gets through that everybody should count their blessings and be very happy. Any other questions members. A representative Phil you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Mr Richmond census bill has come to the attention this committee have been filed and so forth I think I can speak for several my colleagues on this committee that our emails our phones have been blown up by attorneys all over the state that oppose this bill why do they oppose this bill I'm not asking you to speak for them but in general. No I would never presume to speak for the lawyers never but it but it it basically comes down to the fact that we're talking thirty three percent or more maybe a little less and I if I was on that side of the issue I'm sure I'd probably be in here or or supporting somebody saying I don't want my paycheck that I want to collect all that I can possibly collect on this and that and that's the bottom line is that it's about the money for them and they'll get up there no are you say no no no you know the the world's going to end it stop spending gravity will stop and everything else but that's the bottom line and there's nothing wrong with that they're talking about what it is that they're expecting to try to take home and I respect that they have a right to do that but that's what it comes down to it's about the money and and they're concerned about the bottom line. President Clinton you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair representative Richmond I don't know if Mr Allen is going to answer questions but I I just kind of have a question about that non economic damages peas it's something that I'm hearing a lot of inside but to hear if you have any sense of states that have adopted this had non economic damages been impacted I mean what what it sounds like we've got a lot of kind of hypothetical concern about it I'm just wondering what kind of the facts on the ground. Thank you for the question I think this is an excellent opportunity for Mister Allen to answer the question. Mr on the field once again state your name and the answer the question adjusting Allen here I think and I don't want to restate representative your question but I think where that's headed to some concerns of hard that if the plaintiff is limited to recover what was actually paid it for have medical care that it could have a negative impact on the jury's assessment of pain and suffering scars and disfigurement and a lot and if a few thoughts on that first thing I will say is there's nothing in Arkansas law there's nothing in the jury instructions that are given to a jury at the end of the trial that says your assessment of non economic damages are somehow tied to the economic damage recovery that's the first thing I would say the second thing I would say is that plaintiff is going to testify at length as to the impact of the the injuries the surgeries that may have been had in the past there in the future that plans family is going to talk about it at length doctors physicians caregivers are gonna come in and talk at length if it's a barn they're gonna hear about it at length they're gonna see photographs if they're gonna need skin grafts is going to be linked the discussion of the jury's going to be able to hear and fully appreciate. The pain and suffering that they've gone through. Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so represent Richmond you talk about the thirty three percent I mean we're talking about thirty three percent of of of of a verdict or settlement so. Really what we're talking about is the people's ability to get redress for their injuries right so if there's fewer verdicts your settlements we're talking about fewer people getting relief for injuries they've suffered any think that this would reduce the number of cases that are brought because the there they won't reach a threshold that would make it worthwhile to be taken or otherwise would make it more difficult to recover isn't that really what thirty three percent getting at. No I think that the thirty three percent is exactly what the lawyers want to collect in the larger the reward the more money that they'll be able to put in your pocket and there's nothing wrong with that that this will have absolutely zero impact on the cases brought that if you've got a five thousand dollar bill you're going to want the insurance company to pay that if you need legal assistance do that you're going to go get legal assistance to do that this is not addressing that or having any impact on that. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair a you know I keep hearing this. Thirty three percent as if that's the only concern here. I mean you understand that lawyers represent real people. Who will ran over it may be by someone else who were injured because they were abused or neglected in a nursing home elderly patients I understand that there are real people that are affected by this this isn't just about thirty three percent would you agree. Okay it might be about forty percent or thirty five percent or thirty percent but no I don't necessarily agree because it's not going to have any impact upon the lawyers and their clients being able to go back and and filed those lawsuits for the money that they may have experienced and suffering or pain or future medical is not going to have any impact on that and so that what we're talking about here in the intent of the law is to make it where you get reimbursed what is actually cost you okay. Follow up you're recognized for a follow up well let's talk about that so you're you're going to be reimbursed for what it actually cost you okay. Well what it may actually cost you is the amount of money that was paid by a collateral source paid by a third party paid by your BlueCross BlueShield insurance policy for instance. And so what I understand you to say is is that you would only have to reimburse them for the amount that they paid. But the fact is correct me if I'm wrong that the reason you have Blue Cross blue shield is that for month after month after month you pay them premiums maybe years without ever using it. So that the one time that you need it in this instance they pay the bill for you. Is that correct I mean that's how this works is it not. Yes you pay premiums and those premiums continue to climb and get higher for individuals and businesses as well and that there is constant pressure to increase those premiums and that this is possibly a way to reduce some of that pressure on the businesses in Arkansas as well as individual I'm not saying that any insurance company will ever cut their premiums okay I am simply saying that it may reduce the pressure on the pro I know we have a dilemma here I mean who do you feel more sorry for the lawyers or the insurance companies I mean really on this thing but it's not about either one of those it's about the consumer who is actually out there with pressure on them to pay more it's about our businesses with pressure on them to constantly pay more because of the cost of insurance keeps going up represent guess what you're recognized one more follow up and that I've asked before but I'm gonna have to ask again do you understand that there is a real person on the other side of this case and it's not just about lawyers and insurance companies there are real people involved you understand that. The representative Gazaway I do understand that and I understand that there's other avenues that is meant to address those type of things that this particular intent of the law is to ensure that those damages the actual cost of those damages is what's being paid at this particular time concerning medical cost and so I look at this and go there's plenty of other avenues to get the money and the windfall that they're looking for to go ahead and ensure to try to make up for the premiums and other things that they have had to spend over their time but there's other avenues for that and this bill affects none of that madam chair you will get a follow up on that just a little bit and in representive Richmond and I think representive Gazaway is getting a look at the position of wealth the plaintiff that happens to have their own health insurance they paid the premiums for that health insurance I'm sorry manager does is to say let's keep our comments to what the question is and I know. Both of these members have been a member of this committee and and women may fight like cats and dogs but we're all really friends in the and so let's not interject. Their names okay I do that for all my committee well I was going to the website let's just answer the question as well as cat question which is the I would submit and representative Gazaway you probably disagree and others in this room might but the benefit of that insurance that the plaintiff is paid for is that it pays for the medical bills and that the the negotiation down of the the list amount to the amount that is actually paid is to the benefit of the insurer not the insured and then whatever amount was paid by the plaintiff is going to recover from the defendant and under the metal doctrine that plaintiff is going to keep that money in this was an argument or that was made in the first Texas Supreme Court case a challenging the Texas law which this one is modeled after it was passed twenty years ago in the Texas Supreme Court found just that response to that argument that the benefit of that plan is insurance is the payment of the medical cost whatever that is negotiated down or otherwise. Members any other questions representative under you're recognized for a question. Not an attorney never been one if this passes how did the attorneys recoup of their effort how do they get paid. Just like they do now. It in in kind of a corollary to that I've had some questions about what however the court's going to implement this if this becomes law however the courts see fit I think they'll probably look to help Texas is done and say well you can't put into evidence the the billed amount you can only put into evidence the collected amount or Arkansas courts may say would allow both into evidence and will give a jury instruction to the jury that you recover they can only recover what was actually paid but directly to your question they'll get paid exactly the same way they do now if there's a settlement they'll get whatever contingency fee for that they have charged for if there's a judgment same thing whatever contingency fee they have agreed to with the client will come out of that judgment or settlement. Members any other questions I'm sorry represent pets and you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so. It you know and having worked on both sides of this issue if we're going to change it so that the plaintiff is required to only put in evidence of the actual bills paid why would we not also change it so that the defense has to disclose that they are benefiting from the fact that that they're not paying the judgment amount or for their counsel in many cases because the plant is not getting the benefit or I'm sorry is not being given the same detriment of having to tell the jury that it he or she has insurance we're not asking the plan is to have to tell the jury that they have insurance that paid for the collateral source rule continue to apply that regard. You're recognized for a follow up sure but what what you could do is you could ask the defendant's how much they paid out of their own pocket for their attorney or how much they paid out of their own pocket OR they they'd be required to pay for their damages here is a and I mean we we can do it both ways and I think that that would be a transparent on on both sides right no because the plaintiff under this bill is still not having to tell the jury that they had insurance. But the defendant would neither just that they're not paying for the lawyer right I'm sorry it we can do it where the defendant also doesn't have to do that that's under current law yeah well no interest doesn't come in before the jury the jury's not to know that either the plaintiff or the defendant has insurance under current law on this would not impact at all. I'm sorry I think you misunderstand my question you're recognized for a question. The plaintiff is disclosing bills actually paid. The defendant is not paying the bill for his attorney in many cases. We could ask the defendants or that to disclose that he's not paying for his attorney without disclosing that it's being paid for by insurance right. To what benefits. So that neither party is prejudice by the fact that the other is putting in evidence about and bills paid versus versus Bill and the defendant's. You know the whole point of this has always been that the defendant should be prejudiced by the fact that they have insurance right. So they don't have to disclose that the real party in interest is their insurance company. But we're changing that on the plaintiff's side but not on the defense side so why wouldn't we level the playing field on both sides I would just respectfully disagree that we're changing that on the plane aside the fact that the plaintiff has insurance and insurance paid for whatever medical bills were paid for still not come into evidence will not be known by the jury here. Represent more do you have a question. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair at the but Mr Alan's point. But the fact is is that that a jury trial. And under this new law if it were to pass the jury will only know about the amount of the bill that insurance has paid for or that the person is paid for themselves. So it's it's not about me get it all the legal theory that you want but the practical effect is is that the jury will only hear the amount of money that the insurance company paid. And I take it that your theory on this is is that that's more transparent that if you have a ten thousand dollar bill for instance an insurance pays three of it you should only be able to submit three because that's the amount that was actually paid that's transparent there's no deception they're not submitting a ten thousand dollar bill that's actually only gonna have to be reimbursed for three. And to miss Hudson's point if we're gonna transparency on that side what we have transparency on the other side that says you're sitting over there with a million dollar insurance policy and a lawyer who's sitting next to that defendant is being paid three hundred dollars an hour by the insurance company to defend that person that's transparency if you want transparency on this side why don't we have transparency on that side would you agree that that would be fair nope. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and kind of continuing along this this thought I think I heard you say that the collateral source rule would not be affected I just don't see how that can possibly be the case if we're needing to discuss you know what was actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff and if that money was partly coming out of a collateral source how are we not going to be learning about the the end of the third party that's packed it seems to me like that very clearly going to change and abrogate the collateral source rule. So and I'll be getting a little off and legal weeds here but I think I need to to speak to that representative the clip collateral source rule as traditionally understood and applied. Meaning that a plaintiff's insurance or Medicaid or Medicare or rich uncle the paid for their medical bills the jury's not to know if that and that will continue to be the case under this law it again is modeled after taxes Texas Supreme Court has interpreted implied it say collateral source rule still apply the jury does not know that insurance paid the jury's not to know that insurance negotiated down the bill it's just that you recover what was actually paid those of the real damages now I will admit that to the extent and then my god we were slip and fall case nineteen ninety eight the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the plaintiff to recover one hundred percent of what was on the hospital bill even though the hospital accepted fifty percent of it is for one final payment in the the Arkansas Supreme Court that we don't have any case law in Arkansas alone here we're not really sure what the policy is it look to other states including taxes and said you know I think we're gonna go ahead I don't think we're gonna go ahead and say that that benefit should in there to the plaintiff in this case and and when it did so it relied on some Texas case law that a rule just that and of course as we've noted the Texas General Assembly change that in two thousand and three when it passed the policy that this is modeled off of this as you recover what was actually paid represent because you're recognized for a follow up. We'll follow up it is you know I believe that that's not quite right about not having any precedent I mean I I believe it's been discussing Supreme Court of Arkansas for a long time including an opinion written by my. Grandfather that said that when you have a windfall that windfall is as a matter of policy going to go to the innocent plan if not the port fees and that's what the longstanding rule has been under the collateral source rule sense civil wars so it I mean it's not just a service Monday invention. The premises always been that when we have a windfall that windfall would would be better to go to the innocent point of been a court fees or we were effectively benefiting someone who did wrong would you agree I think that that's a fair general description the clock collateral source rule that just to be clear and the McGinley ward case speaks for itself and but if you haven't read it recently go read it says we have not addressed this in the discount medical bill situation that's what I'm rifle shot in there. Members any other questions. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question. We go back to my earlier point which was about transparency on both sides because once again the argument that I hear you make is that there needs to be true transparency on the plaintiff's side so that your plaintiff in a trial and you have a ten thousand dollar bill it's been settled and paid by insurance for three thousand you should only be able to introduce the three thousand. Dollar bill because that would be transparent is that correct I would say generally S. however representative the Arkansas Supreme Court in the courts are going to decide what does and doesn't come into evidence as a result of this they may file the taxes model they may not our courts may say we're gonna let both amounts in the I understand that but we're seek your seeking to change the law here today so that that's how it would operate. We're seeking to change the law so that a plaintiff would recover what was actually paid I understand that but at the trial in in the practice how this would work would be instead of introducing a ten thousand dollar bill you're going to show that it was three thousand. Isn't it true. That during a trial on one of these types of cases it is absolutely forbidden for the plaintiff to even mention the work either side really but the plaintiff to even mention the word insurance and that the defendant who sitting over there who nine times out of ten you know as well as I do nine times out of ten yes it is being paid but that lawyers being paid for by the insurance company and they're sitting over there with a million dollar policy or however much they have and you can't speak a word of it during that trial isn't that how it operates in practice yes that's out operation that defendant paid their premiums for that insurance less right just like the plaintiff paid their premiums to their health insurance company who then pays the bill on their behalf right right in the jury's never told that that will change with this law but they will Ballinger you're recognized but but you will forbid them from submitting the whole bill and you're going to make them on the show the three thousand but you're not gonna make the defendant so how much insurance they have now because the plaintiff is not going to be showing how much insurance he or she has we're just saying pay what was actually recover what was actually paid. I understand all right. Members any other questions. Seeing the other questions we do have a number of individuals who signed up to speak for against the bill we have Jimmy haven. Kevin Mr Kevin Kevin I'm sorry I've I've got okay good. If you come into the table in a dignified yourself it's my understanding you're speaking against this bill so press the button so the microphone to be honest that represent up to make sure you can help in the in sometimes it's confusing and then if you'll just go ahead identify yourself for the record then you may proceed sure Jimmy Kevin Conway Arkansas. Because I got common sense. And I got a nose that god blessed me with with a sense of smell. This bill is simple and what it does in its intent. Your card and pay for my health insurance and my premiums are not cheap at all. But I do it. Basically what this bill does. It's safe I'm injured by another stalled in court I can only claim a portion of my actual bills. But if I don't choose to have it in insurance and pay for health insurance and I'm injured by another spot been in court I can claim one hundred percent of my actual medical bills. Who does that benefit because it sure not me. All the all it does is rob me because I'm responsible. Where's the fairness in that. It doesn't benefit your constituents. It benefits the insurance companies and big business like JB hunt. Let's just call this bill what it is. The insurance company protection that. I can't believe anyone who calls herself a conservative Republican would even entertain this bill. Now. I was I was raised eight miles down a dirt road on the farm loan County. And we learned at a young age Rosa smell good. I'm under no. The sponsor this bill you a seller roses. Thank you. Mr Kevin if there any questions would you entertain them from the Committee sure members are there any questions of this witness subpoena questions thank you for your testimony. Next we have speak for the bill Josh Ashley Mr actually if you'll come the end of the table indemnify yourself and who you're with you're recognized for C.. Thank you madam chairman and a push to push the button there. Red light should come on there you go. That we should be able to hear you know you're recognized state your name and who you're with that person thank you manager my name is Josh actually I'm here for the Arkansas association of defense counsel. Thank you in just a minute somebody up against the. Thank you. All right you may begin. Thank you we've submitted a letter obviously it's for the bill and so I won't reiterate everything in that letter the main thing I wanted to to to say is that this is a an important bill to the social from defense counsel because we represent both individuals and and companies across the state of Arkansas our primary concern is to make sure that the injured party as we discuss receives just compensation that those compensate compensation equals. The damages that are incurred I've heard some discussion about premiums earlier and I think that's an important discussion of a few things I would note about that are one. The reason that folks pay premiums is not necessarily to recover two times the bills that are that are actually paid and there's not necessarily connection between the length of time one paints one pays premiums and getting and getting these bills negotiated down you could pay the premium in most cases for one month and so I understand this is an important issue but I want to clarify that there's also been some talk about whether the defendant has insurance to pay for its attorneys and the issue there is attorney's fees are not typically recoverable in tort case I feel or any a contract case we could debate that but even in a contract case if I negotiated rate with my with my client for half my normal rate I can't succeed in the contract case and then go ask the court for my four eight when I've negotiated to do the work for half the rate and so we we really appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill and we thank you for the opportunity to be heard about it Mr actually would you take questions yes that represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so I'm I'm curious is there any reason that the defense bar as an industry would have an issue with this bill or is this a way to stand in for your clients interest in opposition help me understand sort of as a profession where you have an issue with this bill is is a profession. How can get attorney client privileged conversations but frequently when the position of explaining the justice system to our clients and it's a difficult thing for us to explain that when a plaintiff was admittedly injured in the amount of let's say one thousand dollars on a five thousand dollar bill as having to explain that our system is such that then they go recover two times or multiple times of of what was paid and so we have an interest in the fair administration of justice across our state. Any other questions. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so. I think one of the issues here is that you have this idea about. Two types of plans you have the uninsured planer and you have the insurer played. And the uninsured plaintiff in these instances would be entitled to submit the entire bill. Because they have no third party to settle that bill for them is that correct. Unless it were negotiated down by the plaintiff Hammer herself with her some other means that would always be tied to what was actually paid that's correct so you right so what I hear you so I but I hear your answer to that question to be is yes. I understand you gave some explanation but if you have an uninsured plaintiff who otherwise has not had the bill negotiated down either by themselves or someone else they get to submit to the jury the full amount of the bill is that right. Yes they could submit them out of their actual damages on medical bills. But if someone who has insurance has part of it paid under this theory they only get to submit the three thousand dollar bill for if you have a ten thousand dollar bill and let's assume BlueCross BlueShield page three thousand of it they only get to submit to the jury the three thousand dollar bill is that right. yes representative guys where they could submit what was actually paid and and in many cases there are other ways I'm not gonna get into policy explanations about how insurance is available yes right and so. The result of that is is that in some instances. You would have someone who would maybe be awarded from the jury the entire ten thousand dollar amount. Who then could negotiate that bill down as they often times do. And reap the benefit of that correct. I'm struggling with the part about reaping the benefit is that a goshi it down then the bill would say what was the negotiated down ray is what would be recoverable because that was their damage but they got the ten thousand dollars they negotiated down for instance for three and they keep the difference they would keep the seven right that's how it would work. Represent as I'm sorry I'm not sure I'm understanding what what if it was negotiated down they'll get what was paid on it I mean after the fact after the jury is awarded them their full ten thousand dollar bill then they go to their provider for instance and they negotiate the build down to three thousand dollars they would be entitled to keep the remaining seven right. Well I think that the bill is about bills that were actually paid or for which someone is legally responsible and so I'm not sure they could go recover the ten they would have had to pay it or be legally responsible for is I'm not sure they can go after the fact negotiable of course there to follow up one more follow up I have somebody else in the queue in this and we need to move on to the next hard to do this to just a few I understand I'll circle back to you if need be. The point is is that the reason this rule has existed for many years yes because it treats everyone equally and that they get to whether you're insured or whether you're uninsured you get to submit the form amount of your bill in that treats everyone equally that's essentially why this rule has existed for many years would you agree. I agree that the goal is system has been to treat people equally and we believe that this bill further is that by giving everyone the recovery of what was actually paid and therefore what was there damage. Represent County you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and I think that this is so much of this goes to a bigger issue with hospitals and billing in the way that the whole system is set up so I just kind of have a question for you What is that the folks who are uninsured typically pay on and you know they have thousand dollar bill I guess my question is do hospitals expect with the bill somebody who's uninsured hundred thousand dollars of be expected to cover a hundred thousand dollars from that date from the injured person I could speak for the hospital about what their intent would be. Members any other questions. I see no other questions thank you Mister actually for coming today we have speak against the bill Bob Sexton Mr section if you'll come to the end of the table identify yourself and you're recognized. Yes I'm Bob Sexton with rainwater Holt Sexton I kind of have a unique position here the reason I ask me to talk I have both represent he'll get closer to the Mike that where can you hear me now I've spent probably my first five or six years of my law practice representing insurance companies trying cases performer State Farm all state hospital last twenty twenty five years of my practice as you all know a rain water hold sector represent people all over the state in that time we also spent about twenty years of that time represent most of the county municipalities and state I've tried jury trials represent individuals who were had their insurance company that we're paying my bill to sit there and represent them I've tried jury trials representing individuals who are doing their claims so I'm kind of in a unique position to tell you how things really work as a Christmas movie that at the end of it the guy didn't give the the Clark road walls bonus and instead gave the jelly of the month club we've all seen that at the end of it they getting tied up and he said sometimes things look good on paper but when you see how they affect real people it just doesn't work and that's what happens here let me give you an example of three people in this exact same accident drunk drivers driving down the road there's three guys sit on a park bench one guy he's a retired military veteran the by retired military my father laws retired military veterans he's got tri care insurance would cover his bill the next guy's a small business owner he pays his own premiums he pays check every month so he and his family could be covered by health insurance and the third guy said no departments fresh out of prison he doesn't work he doesn't want to work he didn't have a job he doesn't want a job drunk driver runs into that part me to let's say all three of these men are hurt the same way they have the same injury they get the same surgery and they have the same medical bills there's a limited amount of money here we're talk. And like J. B. hunt runs and everybody all the time that's not true this drug driver as my mama would say doesn't have a pot nor would to throw it out and the only thing we're left with right there is the insurance available for these three gentlemen well should they all get the same thing they all have the same injury there's not gonna be enough money to go around should you take his policy Leslie's got a hundred thousand dollars single limit policy should use divided by three would not be fair that's not what's going to happen if this bill passes this bill passes when they go to court I have to try that case the military better and he's only going to get to show the jury what tricare paid on his bills let's say he's got thirty thousand dollars for the bills he's gonna say I can only tell you about ten thousand dollars and he's going to be restricted his hands are going to be tied under this bill from telling them he served thirty years in the military he hard earned that track here for live and that's why is bills are only ten thousand dollars not thirty thousand dollars and then the guy working for a living he's got a small business he's going to set up there and he's you know they're going to pay a little bit better own recovery than the track here bill Blue Cross and blue shield but he's going to only be able to show twenty thousand dollar money out there and he's gonna be restricted from telling that jury and I've tried this case is going to be restricted from telling that jury that that thirty really had thirty thousand dollars with the bills and guess what I paid five hundred dollars a month for the last ten years he can't tell him that he wants to tell on that so they can understand what's going on but the way the laws are written he's restricted and his hands are tied the other guy on the park bench got fresh out of prison he's going to get up there and talk about all thirty thousand dollars apiece bills and with the jury's trying to divide up they're trying to sit there and figure out how they're going to divide up this hundred thousand dollars he's going to get the lion's share of the money the working guys maybe going to get a little bit less than the military better an on track here is going to get the worst he's gonna be the worst treated in that situation and I. It's not fair the way our system is built our system of court is bill where everybody shows up people the rich guy the poor guy the white guy the black guy we all show up and we're sitting there equal before the law that's the way it works right now we show up and we slay out on the table exactly what are damages are exactly what our medical bills or whatever they are regardless of what you paid on your own bills paid on Blue Cross blue shield of paid a Medicare or Medicaid state and then the jury can decide how they want to divide that up if this law passes everybody in this table I would imagine is covered by health insurance and everybody in this table god for bid if you're an accident or your child's an accident or your wife's an accident and you got to go to a jury trial you're going to be able to that you don't have to show that jury lesson damages. Then the guy with no health insurance and your hands are going to be tight you're gonna be restricted from telling them that you pay these premiums on your own that's how it really works in practice I have tried cases dealing with this issue I've worked on cases in other states for the collateral source exist I've I've worked on cases in Arkansas this is come up this it presumes that there's always enough money to go around I'll just be honest with you Arkansas support small state if you get run over and you're severely injured accident is probably some knucklehead we're looking that has any insurance on the other side if he does have any insurance he probably has a minimum limits you know how much that is twenty five thousand dollars you get your leg cut off that's only got twenty five thousand dollars so in those situations they have to start making judgment calls in your restricting what goes into the pot for the victim and one thing that the restrictions and said that I was kind of struck me about so many clicks up a little bit he said between lawyers and insurance companies what we ought to know by like lawyers I jokingly say my mom tell their body and prison solution have teller about it I'm I'm a lawyer you know I completely understand that but that's not the issue this between insurance companies and individuals they have the claim here here's what's going to happen to practice they're going to bring in trucks companies a bigger that's rare these truck accident those are rare cases we've got we're the largest up please law firm in Arkansas by far we've got offices all over the state I got a handful of cases against trucking companies I got hundreds of cases where we represent individuals against insurance company State Farm farmers all state all that kind of stuff if you do this the individual's going to be able to recoup less the only person that makes any money on this that all lower your premiums the State Farm all stated that moneys go fly right out the door right out of Arkansas and school and write a blue ticket. All noise or our state Paul Minnesota or wherever they're located so nothing about this bill helps an individual citizen recover damages nothing about this bill promotes equality for everybody to show up to the court room at the same time and nothing about this bill promotes personal responsibility I'm a big believer per OR FOR spots bility that's probably why I'm here for yourself up by your bootstraps group in a small town would school scholarships I'm a Republican is probably anybody sitting in this room if we want to talk about a lot of those issues except when it comes for the individual rights of citizens in Arkansas so the only person that does help by this bill all the insurance companies I'd really like to understand how an individual plaintiff who did the right thing who bought is insurance who who joined the military to try to make sure that he's got to know covered for the rest of his life. He is going to be able to blackboard less money he's going to be able to recruit less money and let's be honest with you here's how it works in a real case this in that case is there talking about the million dollar case most of the cases in Arkansas are regular citizens who are in regular accidents in the insurance company on the other side doesn't want to pay I don't want to pay what's fair that's most of our cases and in that case they don't offer you his ten thousand dollars for your medical expenses here's five thousand dollars for your lost wages here no no no no you submit all at two and I just punch out a number and say would you take twelve thousand dollars would you take ten thousand dollars that's how it works the jury trial to all you're really doing all this bill does is restrict the ability for the individual making the claim to have full you know I'm right like sign on all issues it restricts him from saying this is what my bills were this is who paid my bills you just walk in the door today I only had three thousand dollars for the bills. If you're if you're if you're looking at it from the outside those three thousand apartment sure don't say well obviously this guy you're not going no he's got insurance this guy only had ten thousand dollars Bills this act at twenty thousand dollars to build this guy had thirty thousand dollars in bills I'm going to pay this guy more because that's what looks fair to me as a juror but in reality remember they all have the exact same damages they all had the exact same injury but the plaintiff would be restricted from telling the jury that so that's how it works in practice and again I've actually tried cases dealing with this I've tried numerous cases where I put those issues before the jury and remember. This insurance you paid for it with your own money you either pay for it out of pocket and wrote a check or it's part of your compensation that you get for your job that's the way it is for a lot of people or you have to serve in the military you have to serve it to get this coverage and you don't get to present in front of the jury that Hey this is what I was out this is what I was out for ten years paying into the system for I could be able to get this discount it just looks like hate your your your bills on his big so you get less about it so it's a little bit of a hide the ball when it actually works in practice now you're asking about section a lot of people may or may not agree with this I'm for full disclosure I'm for bright light I'm for if we go to a jury trial the jury gets to know how much insurance they got who paid for how much insurance I got who paid for it and they can make an educated decision based upon everything this before but that's not the law right now you're changing one little issue with this bill of the law just limiting what the plaintiff could present but you're not changing the other issues where the jury gets to know the whole picture and there's full disclosure where they can make an educated decision so ultimately begin not talking about the big trucking case not talking about the I'm talking about the regular case for the guys that you know that live in your neighborhood vote for you their case is going to be a regular insurance claim. The only person that benefits from this is going to lower what they can call as they get school lower what the insurance company pays out Mr secretary we have a couple of questions would you be willing to absolutely representative did not ask me to represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair thank you Mr secretary of your testimony I. I have heard this argument about veterans and I have to say I've not heard it from a better and Mr Richardson as you called him representative Richmond. Is the sponsor of this bill and I'm sure he will talk about is also better and so I guess part of my concern here is that we're hearing a lot about equality I'm not sure there are many people who fight harder for quality every day I like to think that they fight hard for quality than I do it is what drives me every day to do what I do in this building when you just laid out what you laid out the situation The laid out with the three different plants I hear a lot of emotional language and I hear a lot of numbers but in each of those three cases one hundred percent of the medical bills are covered one hundred percent one hundred percent one hundred percent that Beals equal to me hi can you please address that I can address that it is really kind of simple to it when you think about it you're assuming that there's always enough money to go around you're assuming we've got Sam Walton who can pay all these bills to pay all these judgments every time but for the regular person and the regular situation it's not even you're usually limited to twenty five thousand dollars fifty thousand dollars sometimes there's five or six people that are trying to get that and even though they have the same injury they have the same medical bills they're going to be paid differently also by changing this rule about what they could put into the pot what they can ask for you're not changing all the rules about what comes out of the pot will be clear on that his military benefits that he has with tricare they get paid back dollar for dollar there's federal US codes that says that they get paid back if I pay for my own health insurance out of my own pocket you all pass statutes and there's Arkansas law it says Hey there's a different priority of without health insurance get paid back they don't get paid back until I made whole I get my lost wages back before they get paid back into the individual who has no insurance who gets the full amount of his damages he's got all kinds of options he's got more money there you don't. Payment plans he can he can negotiate is bills down you can do all those things at the end of the case when the case is over I understand with the jury verdict comes down they don't give you a certain amount for certain dollar figures and I'll say here's ten dollars for the S. R. five dollars for this they give you one number and then you have to figure out how to make everything work at the end of it so it before this bill today if all those three people had the same damages let's say we go to the jury and they all get the same verdict they did the into that case there are volumes of case law there are all kinds of statutes dealing with how you deal with those leads those government lands because we do it all day every day I did hundreds of times with tricare Medicaid Medicaid there's a different rule of law for how you deal with private health insurance there's a different rule of law how you deal with leads what you're doing is you're taking away the benefit of the bargain that he made when he served his time and he got those benefits and your past who's who who's getting the benefit who you pass and that benefit all you're passing that benefit that negotiated about on to the individual to the drunk driver and really it's not even a drunk driver it's to some insurance company who's out of state and they're really the ones that benefit I would imagine the other lawyers that are here today testifying on the other side are probably paid for by the hour for the insurance companies as they sit here probably the question I'm out of last you know this is this is about insurance money leaving the state and ultimately in cases you have to make the decision there's no there's no perfect system will have bows is sitting here saying you're not my you know Dahlke into the pit therefore what do I do Moses let's give you another donkey we don't have that all we have is the jury trial system is not a perfect system and we try in that system for everybody to be equal as they come and present their. Issues before the court so this bill said Hey we're gonna tell everybody about everything that goes on you know during the trial and all the insurance companies I'm not before if this bill was saying Hey you could present everything but we're gonna let the judge have the option to cut these bills down later after the trial is over I'm not before but that's not what happened to practice and that's not what this bill does when we go to a jury trial that I. Question you're recognized for a follow up thank you madam chair I I guess if some hearing two different things I'm hearing first that the issue is a quality and in second actually the issue is is money leaving the state to get insurance companies elsewhere but I guess my question is this. I think we can agree that the punitive damages that will be awarded in each of the three scenarios that you laid out the pain and suffering announcmenet that a jury would award would be different for a veteran versus somebody who got out of prison the day before or whatever they had focal as forgive me if I'm forgetting the details but we know that the payment of any three cases you can put together right we noted during our different images why is inequality we're calling it a problem here with the bill in front of us and not for instance that. Because you're making change here and if you remember my example was there was a limited amount of money to go around which is most of the cases that we have so punitive damages all these happen very often in a regular case the drunk idiot who runs into somebody usually doesn't have very much insurance and you have people that are horribly injured and you're trying to figure out how you're going to divide up a limited amount of money so my example dealt with that limited amount of money in that situation you're gonna be looking at your damages for medical and the guy that paid his own health insurance the guy to serve in the military he's going to be behind the eight ball and be able to claim less damages in front of the jury no question about it and the jury didn't get to hear about why I be I might be for this that they got to hear about the why but they don't get to hear about the why they just look at it on the offset and say well this guy only has two thousand dollars from medical this guy's ten thousand dollars for medical this guy has thirty thousand dollars for medical and they don't get to know why this person's medical expenses are lower than others and it's just not a question. Equality means they all have the same they're not all be treated the same and the difference is why they're not being treated the same because somebody had personal responsibility somebody took care of their family bought health insurance somebody joint military so they can have these benefits and that's the difference and the discount whose it passed on to the discounts passed to the big insurance companies and most of those I would say ninety nine percent of those are not in Arkansas represent Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. You have very long answers. and and you just lose people when you do that so I would ask you to be syncing with what I'm going to ask if you would please so I can understand what you're talking about. Let's begin now with a hundred thousand dollars for the three people. And I guess from representative Clowney that from what she said that does not include pain and suffering. We are only talking medical. Is that just yes or no yes correct okay thank you follow up please ask for a follow up so my question not being an attorney. How can they get more money today the way the law is set up then if we are to change this because it's for medical. So if I understand it I didn't lose you in the weeds if I understand what you said about those three people. All other medicals paid. if there is a hundred thousand dollars and it splits up evenly it's what I understood you to say so if. The confusion comes to me. Yes why is it any different if we pass this law where it talks medical only. Who is getting short sighted. Try to be assisting this act possibly an. You're changing one element of the law what you can claim it is what is going to go into the pot for these three individuals but you're not changing the law about how that money is disbursed after the verdict comes in or after the settlement is a covered in each one of these situations there are different rules federal regulations and state regulations regarding when those insurance companies get paid back because with the military benefit his bills were paid they get paid back dollar for dollar out of whatever judgment he goes to the individual but for the guy who paid as health insurance they might not and so they're not being treated it treated equally on that end that makes sense. You may have a follow up. Well kinda but they're still all getting taken care of. No matter what their insurance paid everybody's medical bills or pay yes or no. The one guy had no insurance the the drug the the guy fresh out of prison so his bills are probably not getting paid. Okay you didn't sound too worried about that guy earlier so what. Yes you didn't sound too worried about that guy earlier so don't get worried about it now thank you said a question. Would you agree. Yes the more you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair going back to this example of three people sitting on the street on a park bench and get hit and let's just say the guys and the third guy didn't just get out of prison but he's down on his luck he just lost his job and you know he's Senate what we're all sympathetic towards him but he didn't have insurance they'll get hit and have the exact same medical bills which the MSRP price is fifty thousand dollars. And he doesn't have anybody to negotiate his raids and we're talking about equality so would you agree that this is not more equal if the other two individuals that have companies to negotiate the rate down to twenty five thousand dollars Reduction so everybody's covered by a hundred thousand dollars for medical care. Just on your math there's three guys with a fifty thousand dollars of the bills and there's only a hundred thousand dollars there's not enough money to go around if you divided a third gave everybody equally he'd only get thirty three there's fifty thousand dollars of the bills this bill does not presume and doesn't take into effect the fact that there's usually not enough money to go around it also doesn't take into effect that once these other individuals these insurance companies that they bought and paid for paid their bills then they're different rights call of subrogation that's what it's called they're right to get paid back or different it's going to be different for the military veteran he's stuck he's got to pay his back will be different for the guy who bought his BlueCross BlueShield there may be some arguments we may be able to go to a hearing where he might not be able to pay that back and for the individual there's all kinds of you know things that he could do this is not a perfect system it's in the court system is not a perfect system what we tried to do is make a quality when we go in there I'm just saying that they're equal when they show up at the courthouse the way it is right now and everybody gets to present the exact same thing if this law passes they're going to be on equal and what they're able to present in front of the jury and based in large part because of their own personal responsibility that they're going to be put at the back of the line. Members any other questions see no further questions thank you Mr section for being with us today. Next we have speak for the bill Randy cirque Mr so could you come to the end of the table state your name you be recognized begins. Yeah. Thank you madam chair thank you members of the committee on Randi's a present the Arkansas state chamber of commerce and associated industries of Arkansas I'll be very brief. Currently the judicial system is a warning damages like paying an expense report without receipts are valuing the car on the sticker price rather than the purchase price. Using billed charges rather than actual reimbursements results in inflated recoveries which neither the patient nor their insurance ever paid. Using billed charges rather than paid inflates recoveries above real costs raises insurance rates and also increases attorney's fees are paid on contingency again it's like paying an expense report based on the rack rate of hotel rooms rather than the actual build ready for the hotel room. Or the list price for an airline seat rather than the actual cost of the ticket people get fired for attempting to do things like that. It's fraudulent. Let me remind you that other organizations in addition to the one I represent that support this bill include the Arkansas bankers association Arkansas health care association Arkansas hospital association Arkansas medical society Arkansas trucking association the farm bureau the federation of defense and corporate counsel the Arkansas association of defense counsel the poultry federation associated general contractors of Arkansas Arkansas grocers and retail merchants association all of whom comprise lots of the job creators and employers in the state across all of your district CNMI testimony to be happy to take any questions members any questions. Seeing the questions thank you Mr secretary this morning next we have speak against the bill Alan lane Mr lane here recognized come to the end of the table state your name and then you'll be recognized. Thank you madam chair Allen lane with the autumn law firm in fatal Arkansas Mr step six and went on and on and and gave some great examples and and got a lot of questions and I think covered a lot of what I think I would have to say I'm I'm what I would sort of point to and. Richey Richmond I appreciate your your comments and and early you always start with the attorneys and and just greedy trial lawyers and I appreciate that that argument's been around awhile to be or what you know around a while longer I would you say to this committee that I've been fortunate enough to committee an organization have to to meet many of get to know many of you many of you have friends and family that didn't know many of our members are members and certified counties in the state and I would just say to trust those instincts who you've got to know who we are as we also noted that at the end of the day we're still going to be practicing we're still be representing people around the state regardless of what happens here today and will be in doing the best job we can do in if any of your family members need us we'll be there for them as well so regardless of what what happens here today it doesn't really change a lot with what we will do in the practice of law and representing people in Arkansas so having said that there has to be some of the reason that we're sitting down here at the end of the table and fighting so this bill and at the end of the day a representative council it is about equality different ratepayers will be treated differently under this bill it's just that simple right now the rule is. We have one ruler one measure of damages for people in this state anyone no matter who you are how you representative how you're insured or not insured whether you're on state Medicaid or if they're funded in some way retired on Medicare tricare for your service and thank you for your service it doesn't really matter we have a run rule or and we trust health care providers to establish what that rule is we trust health care providers to establish the value of those services and everybody goes in the courtroom equal okay so. Just as you would expect a lawyer to be down here protecting his fee that's what you believe we're down here doing fine we understand that as part of it. We also would expect the proponents of this bill to be seeking a savings seeking a profit saving some benefit right they would be pushing this bill there is some perceived benefit to that whole list of folks the misters of just read to you so the question really ultimately comes down to who do you think we need to be helping most the it the individual our cans and. Innocent victim keep that in mind. The impact of your cans in your in your districts are folks that didn't ask for this didn't ask to be put in these chairs couldn't be asked to go to the hospital that night to get an ambulance right that's who we're talking about that's two in its impacted negatively by this bill individual candidates. Right doing nothing wrong right we understand these business interests have risks there are risks of doing business there risk of I work for JB hunt for a while there restraining trucks all over America they understand that they building those rates right. In the system is interconnected the system is a balance. You tweak one part. Well of J. B. hunt I never knew how complicated running trucks up and down the road can be it's a lot more complicated than you believe it is when you go by a truck on the road right there are lots of could critical factors in key factors in making that a successful all of these businesses have flourished under this system since the civil war right. We are fortunate in this state especially the northwest part of the state. We're fortunate these big businesses have done well and thank you for doing well and they do wonderful things and all of our communities across the state and we're grateful for that. We support that. Right but that isn't a reason. That isn't a reason. To negatively impact the men and women in your districts that sit down for dinner every night right and that's what this bill does. And if if you want to tweak some part of the system if you want to tweak some if you want to keep your phone number so slightly on some side of this scale then we would just beg and plead with you to consider tipping your thumb on the other side with some other way talk about an amendment we talked about questions from some of the panel regarding full disclosure of insurance right they would be seeking this bill if it didn't provide them some perceived advantage right we understand that. And they will be back next session and father in the session doing the same thing that's what right get it we appreciate that we accept that appreciate Mr Allen's comments and being I thought very candid with you and berries and some of your questions I appreciate that. You know famous words they're good people on both sides right there are good people good people on both sides of this argument. But if if when he gets back to fundamental fairness. A very simple principle. Right and that's what this bill is about for us it's about fundamental fairness for the people in your district who did not ask. To have this windfall no but if you know anyone in your districts. I was talking if you know anybody in their districts who've been in this position you've been injured through no fault of their own. Nobody is signing up to go through that again. Nobody is doing that this is an I appreciate that we sit here and referred to these things as windfalls. There's no windfall. Right there's no win win for all so. Here the people I was talking to in my office yesterday and clients I was working with Grady Billings is a veteran Fort Smith he was burning apartment fire starting all over his body. Tony Waldon in Russellville to part time nurse and mom was injured pretty badly in a motor vehicle right. Those carpenter in Basil an above knee amputee on medical malpractice. And any sparks and mean and who was brought board who is burned in a chicken house fire from defective electrical those people are seeking windfalls. And those people are going to receive a windfall no matter what you do with this bill you if you leave this alone they're not getting a windfall I can promise you. Are they would trade that windfall to go back and do all the things and that they're dealing with so. This is been the balance since the civil war. I totally understand and appreciate that there can be there are people on the other side of this argument I respect that I understand that right I know you're trying to do good by your people your districts and the and the people that Senator down here and the businesses that are in our districts and in this state do great work for us I respect that. But this is a complicated process it's hard to distill and get into a very simple conversation about issues that are not simple they may seem sensible the bill is very simple. But the ramifications and unintended consequences are not simple for the people of Arkansas they're not. And so I would just ask I would ask you to vote no I would ask you if you have any question in your mind to just consider. It's okay to vote no today and seek further information perhaps there's something better a better option. Right that would be better for the people of Arkansas I appreciate your time thank you would you take questions if they're already yes ma'am members are there any questions of this witness. Andy Underwood you're recognized for a question. Yes I would say I really appreciate comments that you made about business is not something that you want to I must even craft this into question and in a way. We are talking about. Individuals in their families around the dinner table and then that's kind of been pitted against big businesses but those big business business also my constituents that that is this the ministry they employ a lot of people that are sitting around the dinner table and those employers are paying for insurance and liability healthcare and those type of things right so I mean I guess if we're talking about a windfall for big businesses as I a kind of turned I also kind of see that as a benefit for those employees who work who is employed by a lot of those I am I wrong in that assessment. I don't know if you're wrong you're not hi I would perceive this in northwest Arkansas the better the business is doing northwest art Arkansas I believe the better our communities doing the better the people do in our in our districts I believe that what I'm not so sure is in my experience. Is that good businesses focus their growth and opportunity and success. Focused on things like this I do not think successful trucking companies are successful because they are worried about whether or not the claims they may have to pay are or are not a certain amount or are not judged upon a paid bill verses a what was billed right I know that's a factor I know they consider that there's some department that's having that conversation but I do not believe that J. B. hunt is successful because the vast majority of their leadership is focused on things like that. I think when I was there we focused on training we focused on education we focused on equipment. You know we focused on maintenance those are the things that keep us safe those of things to keep them safe and their driver safe which I know matters to them and also keep their claims low. Right so I think. You know. Written under what I think we agree on a lot of things I know we agree on a lot of things and I appreciate your comments and I appreciate the job you do for your people and your your district but. There's nobody down here trying to harm business that's not that's just not how we see it we trying to help people I appreciate that those that want to vote for this bill think that they're helping people are helping business I get it. We're all businesses we're on thirty five counties were on main street we are representing all the small businesses across the state are membership is doing that to our membership as he's called in that family members get hurt. Thank you represent Collins you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so I think both sides of talked a lot about awards in this conversation I'm curious about the impact of this bill on access to justice and and do you think that there would be people who wouldn't be able to make a claim or or find an attorney to would help them if we pass this bill is talk about practical information to the there's always that potential so the the consequence here you know just as everybody has said what. Lawyers who take cases have to recover their time and recover their expense it is very rare that we have a client we're at the end of that case we have paid our selfie and done very little for that client when the client is happy with us. Right so so good attorneys in the state. Think twice about those claims. As claim values are reduced the multipliers that are used as what we're talking about. Right as those values are reduced yes it will cause lawyers to have to consider whether or not they can equitably or fairly or economically represent people in Arkansas. You know that's that's just the reality of it now is that a goal of the proponents of this bill I don't know I don't I don't know that do I think that they want to stop people from seeking access to justice I don't know that I would go that far that could be an unintended consequence of the bill true. Members any other questions. See no other questions thank you Mr lane being here today thank you senator next we have to speak against the bill Paul Ford Mr Ford. Mr Ford in the room. Next we have speak against the bill and I'm sorry we can't I'm sorry. Mr Ford I'm in the room about nine ten yes okay. Next we have who signed up to speak against the bill and I'm sorry we can't read your last name Danny. Then the falcons Ellis Ellis. Well you're welcome to come to the end of the table Mr Ellis and state your name and you may begin. Thank you chairman Danny Ellis from truck right justice hi I have been asked to speak regarding trucking actually I was made aware of this issue because it was presumed that the amount of settlements in trucking cases we're going up astronomically in Arkansas based on medical costs. And what I could tell this. A group of individuals here the system group of individuals is that's not the case the American trucking association has a research arm called the American trucking research institute in two thousand twenty one they put out a list of factors that they consider when looking at two different states to determine who were the most. Lucrative state for trucking cases Arkansas did not make the list in fact a lot of talk today about Texas and the model that Texas has in an effort to model taxes to bring down awards unfortunately under actually study Texas is a top ten. In fact there's number eight in the amount of some of payments average wise. For trucking cases. I'd like to echo what Mr lane said about these individuals who are innocent victims. But what I think goes further cities are every day conservative folks hi Kansans. Who are ashamed to have to walk into a place attorney's office because they're not being treated fairly to have to hire a plaintiff's attorney to seek justice. And there's been a lot made today about hypotheticals about equality I would just once again point to the Arkansas constitution it says that equality before the law is involved and I want to give you a real life example. I happen to be involved in case. In El Dorado Arkansas and which ammonium nitrate exploded. There was a truck fire. There were twenty eight individuals from the canyon fire department that have. Who cordoned off a radius around the truck fire. And they still weren't far enough away after the explosion everyone of those in everyone of those individuals but many of those individuals those firefighters who were there putting their lives on the line were injured. Representative Connie you pass how is this going to affect this and you've been told that this will not affect how jury views. The injuries in case and what I would tell you is. The men and women who Senate jury all they want to do is get it right and they're given instead a set of instructions. To look at economic damages and non economic damages. I have a sixteen year old. God is blessed with a great mind when she was in second grade she can look at a spreadsheet tell you how much he owed. When a jury is asked to put a value. I'm non economic damages they are looking to something. And one of the things that they're going to look to is the amount of the medical bills. That person curse. And taking elder radio firefighters Holden suffered nearly identical injuries if some of them have their insurance. Through Camden fire some of them have them through their spouses insurance. Their claims are going to be treated differently when it comes to non economic damages they all went to the same emergency rooms they were all built the exact same amounts but a Blue Cross blue shield paid two thousand dollars for the of it for injuries let's say the minor's cuts and scrapes and at no or cigna paid three thousand dollars for the exact same thing the jury is never going to hear that Blue Cross paid this amount and then pay this amount for the exact same injuries what they're going to see are two different amounts. And I say well this person with three thousand dollars. Suffered more and so we should use that rate. In determining. The non economic damages. As much as we want to divorce these things from each other in a court room they are intertwined. So standing before the law. A plaintiff or plaintiffs are gonna be treated unequally unintentionally. Because we're putting available what's going on. If this committee wants to pass this bill then make it full transparency. This two thousand dollars is because Blue Cross blue shield paid this amount only's in German the jury BlueCross BlueShield going to get their money back. That's something I wanna make sure is very very poignant. This money these medical bill charges do not go back into these people's pockets they will go to the insurance companies. The injured individual. So with that being said this bill. I don't believe it's going to accomplish what it's what's been intended for. If if we're going to put a name on it it's a it's a form of tort reform. If that's what it is let's be open and honest about it all the way across. Whether it's. Michael payments whether it's what we make whether it's how the defendant's going to pay the the amount of of the judgment. What have you. For transparency or keep the status quo because the status quo is what's fair. Members are there any questions of Mr Ellis. See no questions thank you Mr rose for your time this morning members we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative guess what you're you. Going to present your amendment. Not at this time. Per se Richmond you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you madam chair and that's really appreciate all testimony. You heard a lot of different things and a lot of different information here a lot of different questions again you know just another opportunity to make friends and influence people while we're down here and that's what we get to do. There's a few things said that I'd like to address on this in this I'll begin with you know Texas Oklahoma Missouri Mississippi as well as several several probably twenty twenty twenty five other states have this type of legislation already in place. And there's not a tsunami of victims running away from those states there's there's matter of fact you just heard the last testimony that. This is really not had much impact. On victims in Texas who have been run over by trucks or whatever that the awards have been similar now. Hospital cost is paid but I would think that as you take a look one of the things that they they bring continue not to bring up is all the other avenues available. For you to be made whole Europe you know pain and suffering and all those things. We're a lot of times that's were the largest rewards come from. And the money that people get. They didn't talk about that they just want to keep it on the victim in and that fact that this is somehow unfair having your medical bills paid. Which is what the intent of the law has always been. They talk about veterans. Yeah I'll just say I did not become a marine officer for tricare benefits or certainly not for the pay because neither one or more is that great. It's adequate it is adequate but I'm running this bill because I believe that this legislation ultimately will help. Everybody in this state with your premiums removing some of the pressure to continuously raise the premiums because you're paying your insurance that you pay premiums on is paying bills. Hospital bills that are not real. That they're paying an additional bonus here because are paying the bill that the hospital issued and not the actual cost. I think it will help our businesses in this state to reduce the pressure on them as well as far as the insurance company saying you've got to pay us more because of these accidents. Now I was involved in an accident here a few years ago. And I walked away from it pretty good shape. And when they talk about going into the you know it to the lawyer's office the point that I didn't I didn't approach any kind of legal but my phone never stopped ringing for months. Hey contact us you were in an accident. I'm fine I'm not hurt doesn't matter contact us you pay insurance for reason. I wasn't injured I don't operate that way. Looking for money that I don't necessarily need to pay something that I didn't have any cost up but yet that phone rang every day almost every week. And so I mean let's just look at the situation that we have here and that there are no angels. There's no angels at all people are going to compete and work hard to keep the money that they have whether it's business insurance company individuals or the lawyers yes and that's fair that's the way it's supposed to be. They talked about the fact there's no transparency. And this is going to make it worse. Where's the legend Paraclete this this whole thing is just really a big Ole mess. The whole bloody thing is nothing but a mess but yet there's no legislation anywhere else to address you know this lack of transparency but it seems exist at this very moment and that somehow this bill is going to make that so much worse. Where is that legislation. Why hasn't that come to us before now because as it was said the status quo is what wants to be maintained here. The status quo is what's important and that if. If somebody has a good idea. Come here we run run a bill what a bill to bring that transparency. And more likely I'll support that bill I don't unless I tell our readers I'm not going to be absolutely. But. Let's do that. Let's do that. Again I think that this bill deserves an opportunity to go to the house floor we're the lobbyist can continue to earn their pay. Working hard to go ahead insure that they get their way. That's fair. On this week should give them that opportunity. And then they have that opportunity and then they have the Senate again you know this thing deserves to die I'm sure get shot in the head kicked in the ditch somewhere. But I would ask that we consider here now an opportunity to go ahead and send it to the house and let the House members here this bill. And with that I'm closed and I make a motion do pass members we have a motion to do pass on the table is there any discussion of the motion. The president Gazaway you're recognized for discussion of the motion. Thank you madam chair I'm a firm though on this for several reasons. It primarily because. It's not fair and it's not going to result in fairness. Up for the constituents who we represent and for average everyday people across state of Arkansas it's a great bill if you're an insurance company it's not a great bill eleven Paragould and you've been hurt or you live in. Little Rock or Northwest Arkansas anywhere else around the state if you're an average person. This is not a good bill it's not fair because it treats people differently we've heard this many times you have the uninsured person who gets to submit the entire bill before the jury and you have the insured person who only gets to submit the portion that's been paid and the result of that is is that people in that process are treated fairly the uninsured people get more than the insured people and that's not how the system should work and so it's not fair and that's why the law that we have now has been the law of this state since eighteen seventy five or whenever it was exactly but it's around that time that's why this is been the law this state for that long because the law that we have treats people fairly. If we change it people are not going to be treated fairly. The second thing what's not fair is because this is very much a transparency for the but not transparency for me this is the insurance company saying if you go before a jury you can only tell them about the the amount of money that is as old on the bill because of what we reimbursed so you you can't say that you ten when you know that three has been paid that's transparency for the. But transparency for me for the insurance companies would be to sit over there to be honest with everybody in the room and say yes there's ten minute there's a there's a million dollar policy available and yes the attorney who sit here by Mr Mrs so and so is being paid for by the insurance company they don't want that. They didn't bring that bill and I was glad to hear. Representative Richmond saying that that would be something he would support because as madam chairs asked me many times about the amendment that I have that's the exact amendment that I have today transparency for the and if you're if you're for that then we can make that change we can add that to this bill and so I would say let's keep the bill here will add that amendment on to it and then we put on the house floor that's the amendment that I've that has been referenced many times if we want to be fair. On both sides of the equation let's do it I've got it. The last thing is that you know at the end of the day this boils down to. Are you trying to help. The constituency live in your district that the people who live in your district or do you want to help the insurance companies because this is going to help the insurance company is going to help the laundry list of people. in industries who were named to came down at the end of the table and rattled off why there for this bill it absolutely will help them that's why they're supporting this bill it will not help. The individual constituent that you have who's hurt as a result of nursing home neglect or abuse ran over by an eighteen Wheeler you act that we we think that these things don't happen but they do happen and we we think that these things only happen to somebody else until one day they happen to you. And because of that. I can't support this bill. And I would urge you not to support this bill thank you. Members any other discussion on the motion. Representative Cooper you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Reservist in this is a tough bill. I'm. I'm waiting on supporting this bill but. I'm interested in this amendment that represented Gazaway has would you be willing to. Draw your motion. Let us look at this amendment and proceed from there. I would consider that but I'm not going to at this time because this bill's been out there a long time I had no idea about this amendment this amendment showed up on the desk two day. On this first time I heard about it there was no opportunity to work and be sure that I could go back and take a look at this and and I just don't think that's what you do business here you know I'm not going to do it you and then appreciated being done to me so if there's a that there's going to be new legislation and let it be new legislation. And I want to go ahead and pursue this bill and see if we can get it passed right now that it can be amended down the center them. Where there is time to discuss it time to review it. Time to go ahead and try to come up with the with the exact language that would make everybody satisfied. But to just drop it here today. Not. Further discussion on the motion that's on the table. I see no further motion we have a motion to do pass on house bill fourteen eighty all in favor of the motion say aye. I'm sorry fourteen eighteen one more time I would get the bill right for the record of on house bill fourteen eighteen all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit the bill has failed members on Tuesday let me give you the list of thank you madam chair thank you Committee thank you Mister Richmond mean represent Richmond members here's what we have for Tuesday. We're going to hear the concur in the Senate amendment on house bill ten eighteen. House bill ten eighteen then we have house bill thirteen ninety four. House bill thirteen ninety four represent the field I'd indicated to you that we would hear house bill fourteen twenty six but we're going to do that on Tuesday because I may be a short meeting on Thursday so I didn't want to. Leave you hanging out there also house bill thirteen thirty nine. And house bill fourteen thirty one. So it's going to be ten eighteen thirteen ninety four thirteen thirty nine fourteen thirty one members thank you for your attention today I know it's been a long morning thank you for taking very careful consideration and with that we are adjourned.