House Convenes

I invite the members, staff, press, and guests in the galleries to stand and be led in prayer by house chaplain, Brother Richard Hamlin, senior pastor, Faith Baptist Church of Cabot, and to remain standing for the Pledge of allegiance to be led by Representative Lane Jean. Let us pray. Today, Almighty God, our minds are on the On the truth We remember the words about say the prophet from so long ago when he and as a result, We live in such a for all the talk that we hear. So God in this house. That this body might commit standing for the truth. That you, God, who are the spirit. No matter how often that Isaiah would have warned and we see his words coming true that we feel like we're at a disadvantage. We make ourselves a prey. And will prevail. Members please indicate your presence by pushing your yellow present button, prepare the machine, madam clerk. Has everyone indicated their presence. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. When 97 members present, chair sees a quorum. Any requests for leave? Representative Carr for what purpose? Leave? You're recognized, leave for Representative Duke. His leave granted for Representative Duke. So moved Representative Lundstrom for what purpose? You're recognized granted for Representative Ladyman. moved Representative Matthew Shepherd moves that we dispense of the reading of the previous day's journal, no objection, so ordered. Oh, Representative Aker, what purpose? Leave Representative. Is leave granted for Representative Volt. So moved. Are there any reports from select committees? You recognized, Madam Clerk. Mr. Speaker, we your Committee on House Management to whom was referred? House resolution 1011. 10:13, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, Vaguely report we're under the same consideration here for time with the same recommendation that it do passes. Respectfully submitted Representative Walker, chair. Madam Clark, are there any reports from standing committees? You reckon. Mr. Speaker, we your committee on agriculture, Forestry and Economic developments to whom was the House Bill 1048 beg leave report we're under the same consideration here concerned with the same recommendation that it do pass as amendment number one, respectfully submitted. Roger Lynch, chair. Mr. Speaker, we are a Committee on Agriculture, forestry and Economic Development, to whom was referred House Bill 1220, House Bill 1149, Senate Bill 61, Senate Bill 68, vaguely report that we're in the same consideration here return the same recommendation that it do pass, respectfully submitted. Representative Lynch, chair. Mr. Speaker, we your committee on state agencies and governmental affairs to whom was referred House Bill 1138, Maly reporting the same consideration. I'm here to term the same recommendation that do pass as Amendment number one, respectfully submitted. Representative Jimmy Gazaway, Chair. Mr. Speaker, we're your committee on state agencies and governmental affairs to whom was referred to Senate Bill 18 vaguely report the same consideration here time the same recommendation that it do pass as amendment number one, respectfully submitted, Rick Beck, Vice Chair. Mr. Speaker, your committee on State agencies and governmental affairs to whom was fired. House Bill 1135, Senate Bill 56. Vaguely report we're under the same consideration here at the same recommendation. That it do pass, respectfully submitted Representative Gazaway, Chair. Mr. Speaker, we are a committee on Insurance and commerce to whom was referred House Bill 1205, Begley report went the same consideration here for the time with the same recommendation that it do passes amendment number 2, respectfully submitted. Representative John Maddox, chair. Mr. Speaker, we, your committee on interns and commerce, to whom was referred House Bill 1237, House Bill 1238, House Bill 1271, House Bill 1273, Cen Bill 70 Senate Bill 76 vaguely reported the same consideration here was returned with the same recognition that it do pass. Respectfully submitted, John Maddox, chair. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is there any unfinished business? Are there any executive communications? Madam Clerk Members, um, with us today. I'd like to recognize our Arkansas State troopers, Sergeant Austin Ley from the regulatory Services Division in Little Rock and Corporal Trey Keller from the Highway Patrol Division also of Little Rock. Gentlemen, thank you for your service to the house. Serving with us today, our doctor of the day is Doctor Donald Galden. He's an ophthalmologist from Little Rock, Representative Ashley Hudson's district, sir, thank you for being here today, and our nurse. Our nurse of the day, Ms. Lee Fazio. Ms. Lee, thank you very much. Members in the East gallery, please welcome students of the Arkansas Optometric Association. They are guests today of Representative John Eubanks. If y'all would recognize them. In the West Gallery, uh, guest of Representative Stephen Walker today. We have Newton County Sheriff, Mr. Glenn Wheeler, sir, thank you for your service. Madam Clark, please read House resolution 1004. House resolution 1004 by Representative Maberry to recognize Laurie Tudor to her 41 year career with the Arkansas Department of Transportation and Positive impact on the state of Arkansas. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized to explain the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm gonna ask Representative Childress to come on up here because Laurie Tudor is actually in your district, so you have the outgoing head of the Department of Transportation and the incoming or current, Jared Wiley in your district. So, um, wanted to make sure we recognize those in your district, um, this resolution is so beautifully written, I'm gonna ask the clerk to read it in its entirety, but we do have a wonderful guest up here, um, Laurie Tudor, she can wave her hand and, and you're going to hear her. story in just a second. Many of you, I know you know her because this was a resolution that actually brought me a great amount of joy to walk around and ask many of you to, to be co-sponsors on this, and I just want her to know that when I started talking, I would get like half a sentence out, and they would say, oh yes, let me sign up. Let me be a co-sponsor and so many wonderful words. I wish I was recording what I heard from members here, but I would hear repeatedly she's wonderful to work with. We might not have always agreed, but we, we worked on resolutions together. Um, we're so sorry that she's leaving. We wish she didn't have to leave and my list can go on and on. So you have a great amount of respect right here in the House of Representatives. I'm gonna ask for our clerk to read her entire story. Um. Madam Clerk, please read the resolution in its entirety. Whereas Laurie Tudor has been employed by the Arkansas Department of Transportation for 41 years, during which time she became the first female director of the department in 2020. And whereas Director Tudor became a clerk typist in the equipment and procurement division, thus beginning her career within the department and whereas Director Tudor worked at the department for 13 years before deciding to explore the possibility of becoming an engineer, which began with taking night classes, and whereas after discovering her love and affinity for mathematics director tutor quit her job with the department and In order to obtain a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, often driving several hours between Little Rock and Memphis, Tennessee, in order to complete classes at the University of Memphis all while maintaining her role as a wife and mother. And whereas upon graduating from the University of Memphis Director tutor accepted a job with the department as a civil engineer one and it's planning and research division. And whereas while at the department director tutor, it quickly rose in ranks and passed her professional engineering exam on the first try. And whereas according to director tutor, one of the biggest projects at the department was transforming a cash forecast system which took her two years in coordination between the information technology and physical services division. And whereas director Tutor oversaw countless projects during her time at the department, including leading during the Hernando de Soto Bridge closure on Interstate 40, reorganizing the department to streamline operations and better serve the public in an efficient and responsive manner and initiating the design and development of the RA Fallen Worker Memorial to honor those individuals who live. lives were lost in service to the people of the state of Arkansas. And where as director tutor received numerous awards throughout her career at the department, including being inducted into the University of Arkansas's Academy of Civil Engineering in 2018, receiving the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials, Alfred E. Johnson Achievement Award in 2019 and receiving the Associated General Contractors of Arkansas, sir, skill, integrity, responsibility Award in 2024 and where as director tutor became director of the department only a few weeks after the. outbreak of coronavirus 2019, thus being thrust into managing not only one of the largest departments in the state of Arkansas, but also the Health and well-being of thousands of department employees and the continuation of day to day services that were essential for the operation of the state's transportation system. And whereas when asked about her career and impact on the department director tutor cited, Women must be confident in who they are and not be apologetic for being a woman. Be yourself, whomever that is, people will respond to your geniusness. Hard work and having a dream go a long way. I know that there is a purpose for me being here, because if you look at it on paper. I shouldn't be here. Sometimes I think, what am I doing at this desk? How did this happen? Deep down, I'm still the little clerk typist that was struggling to make ends meet. Anything worth achieving is not going to be easy. And whereas Director Tudor has inspired countless individuals, especially women, to pursue careers in engineering and similar fields, demonstrating that ambition and determination can break barriers and redefine possibilities. And whereas directors Tutor's leadership, resilience, kindness, and tenacity. will leave a lasting impact on the state of Arkansas and her influence will continue to resonate for years to come. Now therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the ninety-fifth General Assembly of the state of Arkansas that the House of Representatives recognize the Arkansas Department of Transportation Director Laurie Tudor and her positive impact on the state of Arkansas. Matt Clark has read the resolution in full Representative Mayberry's explained the resolution. Does anyone want to speak against the resolution. For the resolution. Representative Mayberry is closed for the resolution. The question before the House is the passage of House resolution 1004. All those in favor say aye. nay Let the record show that the resolution is passed unanimously. Congratulations, Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Director Tudor for your service. Madam Clark, please read House resolution 1008. House resolution 1008 to recognize monster Michael Todd for his outstanding accomplishment in professional arm wrestling and for honorably representing the state of Arkansas. Represent Duffield, you're recognized to explain the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, if you would. I would like Representative Warren, Representative McGrew, and Representative Cozart to join me at the well this time. Colleagues today, we gather to honor a true titan of competitive sports. He is the monster, Michael Todd. With an astonishing 23 world arm wrestling titles and 36 national arm wrestling championships. He has spent nearly 35 years dominating his sport with power, skill, and an unwavering determination that continues to inspire. Competing in his first arm wrestling tournament at the Saline County Fair at the bright-eyed and fiery age of 17. He has since faced off against and soundly defeated some of the strongest and most skilled arm wrestlers in the history of the sport and has forged a legacy as one of the greatest arm wrestlers of all time. A proud son of the natural state. Mr. Todd represents Arkansas honorably throughout his devout and endless commitment to achieving athletic greatness, inspiring not only Arkansans, but sports fans and aspiring athletes throughout the world. Michael Todd is a living testament to the idea that through dedication, focus, and an unrelenting will to succeed. There are no limits to what Arkansans can achieve. So ladies and gentlemen, Please join me in recognizing and honoring our guests today. He hails from hot Springs, Arkansas. He is the monster. Michael Todd. Thank you for Representative Duffield has explained the resolution. Madam Clerk, please read the resolution in name only. To recognize Monster Michael Tod for his outstanding accomplishments in the professional arm wrestling and honorable. Honorably representing the state of Arkansas. Is anyone wish to speak against the resolution? For the resolution. Representative Duffield is closed for the resolution. The question before the House is the passage of House resolution 1008. All those in favor say aye. Nay, let the record reflect that the motion was unanimous. Congratulations, Representative Duffield, the resolution is adopted. Morning hour has ended. Members will go to the red calendar now. Madam Clark, please read House Bill. 1,0466 Representative Pilkerson to establish a blue envelope program. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um Thank you colleagues. Uh, today I present to you the blue envelope program. It is a program designed to help communication between law enforcement officers and those with autism disability during traffic stops. And so I think the easiest way is just to kind of explain how this would work. An individual who has autism who's driving a vehicle and gets pulled over by a police officer can hand over an envelope that would include their important documents like a driver's license, insurance cards. Or other, other, uh, medical information or other important documents. This is a non-verbal way to communicate to the police officer that the driver has autism. And so that when they're interacting with them, if they're a social cues are off or other odd behavior, uh, it might be because they have autism and so that might be a reason why, uh, this individuals acting differently. Um, yesterday in committee, we had two individuals with autism come and present and tell their stories of traffic stops they had that, uh, went off course because the police officer didn't know that they had autism and they wish that there was a way to better communicate that. And we also had a law enforcement come and testify as well, explaining that this would help them provide their job because as they want to protect and serve us and want to make sure that they're handling the situation the right way possible and many times, some of the behaviors that they present being autistic in other situations, not being autistic would send cues to escalate the situation and obviously we would hate to see an escalation like this occur. Um, I just want to thank the, uh, Arkansas Governor's council, uh, development disabilities for supporting this bill and working with us to make it the best it could and um I really, it's a pretty simple, easy bill. 6 states already do this, and I would hope that we would actually be the first state in the South to, to pass this. And so I'm excited to be a leader in our region of the country on this and I think it's just a good thing and, uh, you know, it's, it's funny to hear my first session, Johnny Ry counting one day and after a really hard bow and said, we did some good today, Pil, and every day down here, I think, did we do some good today and We can pass this bill and we can do some good today. So with that, I ask for a good vote. Thank you. Representative Pilkington has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Perkins closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1046, prepare the machine, madam clerk. As everyone voted. Everyone voted. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With a vote of 96 ya, 0 nays, and 0 present. The bill has passed. Madam Clark, please read House Bill 1074174 by Representative Ray to amend the property tax relief Trust Fund and to require a higher vote threshold for using money in the property tax relief Trust Fund for purposes other than property tax relief. Representative Bray, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, uh, House Bill 1074 would require a 3/4 vote threshold to utilize any funds from the property tax relief fund for a purpose other than property tax relief. Uh, the reason I think this would be beneficial is because there have been numerous times in the past when the legislature has gone in and essentially raided funds that were intended for property tax relief and use them to spend on other projects. I don't think that was the intent of the voters in 1999 when they approved Amendment 79 to our state constitution. I think that the property tax relief trust fund ought to be used for. Property tax relief. So having a 3/4 threshold, um, would provide some meaningful protection for the trust fund. That's the same threshold that we have for appropriations and so it would still be possible to move money in the event that there were uh an emergency of some sort, but I think this sends a very strong pro-taxpayer message that going forward this body intends to respect the purposes for which Seeing none, we'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Ray has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Rye. You're recognized to speak for the bill. Representative Wright is exactly right. This all started in the year 2000. And it started out being $300 now it's $500 but along the way, in 2002, 25 million was taken out of that fund, and there was another extraction a little later down the line exclusively exclusively for property tax relief, and I appreciate a good vote on this. Representative Rye has spoken for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Ra, you wish clothes for your bill. Representative Ray is closed for the bill. The question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1074. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. Everyone voted, everyone voted. Cast up the ballot. With a vote of 96 ye, zero nay, and 0 present. The bill has passed. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 1204. House Bill 1204 by Representative Eubanks to establish recovery of damages for necessary medical care treatment. Representative Eubanks, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you. Members when I filed this bill, I don't think I thought it through real well. Uh, I find it interesting that the optometry students are here today because I, I ran something almost as high profile and controversial, you know, a few years ago, for them as what this has turned out to be, uh, that was certainly not my intent, but I got a feeling that It's a good thing this is my last term because I doubt if there would ever be a group of attorneys sitting in the gallery as my guest, but anyway. Members, uh, House. House Bill 1204, uh, is something that's garnered a lot of attention, obviously, uh. It's something that I have cared about for a number of years. And as I said in committee, it was something that I've felt strongly about even prior to getting elected. This act Of course, addresses, uh. Tort and it uh what it does is It establishes, uh, The recovery of damages for necessary medical care, treatment or services rendered. And I was asked to insert the word past when it uh, with regard to the medical services, the whatever treatment or care that, uh, uh, a plaintiff, an injured party may receive and, uh, I did that. So it only addresses the past, uh, necessary medical treatment. Care or medical services and uh the recovery, the damage is received. Includes only those costs actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or that remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party. It's legally responsible. Uh, the bill makes clear that in a personal injury case, the plaintiff's recovery is For what was actually accepted as full and final payment. Now, we all know that, uh, when we go to a doctor at the hospital, we've all received bills and we've received that bill and they agreed to accept as full payment in many cases, what was Uh, agreed upon with their insurance company, Medicare and Medicaid. And so The purpose of this bill is to limit those damages to that amount. Not to build them out, but the amount that was actually agreed upon is full and final payment. Nevertheless, Arkansas courts allow the plaintiff to recover the build amount even though something less was accepted. And hence where the term phantom comes from because the difference between what was accepted as full and final payment. And what the bill amount is. Doesn't it impact other categories of damages. Uh And I would contend that if, if we feel like somebody is Not receiving what they are due because of an injury that, that's where That those amounts should be. Whether it's, uh, for future medical cost, uh, whether it has to do with lost wages, past and future, uh, property damage, uh, non-economic damages, including past and future pain and suffering, uh, And all that is in, you know, entailed in that. Uh, it does nothing to, uh, the plaintiff's ability to recover amounts paid for by medical. For medical from collateral sources. And so if a health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or something was to pay that bill. The individual would still be able to keep that portion of the claim. Now, I know there were some things that came up in, in community yesterday, and, you know, I guess there are some circumstances where that is not the case because of the, a term that I've become familiar with. Over the last few weeks and that, uh, Representative Hudson brought to my attention was subrogation. Uh, apparently for the most part, in Arkansas, that doesn't normally happen with regard to the insurance companies, but that is something that does happen with the, on the federal side of that. And I'm not going to deny that. I'm not trying to hide anything here. I'm not going to, uh, suggest that insured or and non-insured people are completely treated the same. All I know is even if you don't have insurance, your medical is, is paid. So, You know, there's a number of states that have accepted uh adopted this, uh, this, this bill is based on the Texas law, and the, uh, The, the Texas Supreme Court, of course, I know we're in Arkansas, but, uh, The Texas Supreme Court says the collateral source rule continues to apply to such expenses and the jury should not be told that they will be covered in whole or in part by insurance. Nor should the jury be told that the healthcare provider adjusted its charges because of insurance. You know, over half the states have adopted something similar to this. Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri are three states that we border that have something very similar. I can show you a list of all the states that have something very similar. So, I guess. I'm just asking that we try to take A small step and trying to contain the cost that I believe not only business, has to, uh, Except but that it also affects all of us in one, in one sense or another. So I'm just asking that we take a common sense approach. And just accept what the full and accepted amount of the medical bills, bills were and that be the recovery with regard to these compensatory damages. And with that, I will attempt. To answer any questions. Representative Garner, for what purpose? You're recognized. I just want a little bit of clarification and just watching it seems like if I pay my insurance forever and get hit by someone else who doesn't pay insurance, then my damages. I heard that discussed yesterday, but I think if you are receiving the, the settlement for what the medical bills were and you received also And your insurance paid the bill, you are in essence receiving additional recovery, are you not? the bill's written it that don't have insurance or being paid those without insurance. So what happens And has done the right thing, gets penalized and saying are the insurance companies who Arkansas and then the Arkansans who have been paying insurance, or wouldn't you agree? Uh, no, I think we'll have to disagree on that one actually. appreciate a good vote. Representative Eubanks has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Hudson, you're recognized to speak against the bill. Gosh, y'all have never been called out from the well before. Um, I wanted to clarify a few things. I have practiced law here in the state of Arkansas for the past 18 years. I've worked for and against insurance companies and so I wanted to clear up a few things about how this works. So, I used an example yesterday in committee of 3 people all involved in the same accident with the same exact injuries. One of those people has a Cadillac plan, really great insurance. One of them is uninsured and one of them has catastrophic injury insurance. The total cost, the total build cost of each of their injuries is $10,000. Well, the person with no insurance is going to get recoup the full $10,000. The person who is paid premiums for years and years and years. Done the right thing, kept track of their insurance is going to get a reduced amount, maybe $2000 in recoupment on their medical bills. The person who has an OK plan, but not a great one, make it 5. Now, here's where that becomes a problem, and this is something that we can't legislate away because it is an industry custom within the insurance industry. The way insurance adjusters decide what your, what your soft damages, that is the damages for things like pain and suffering, um, any sort of long-term issues you may have as a result of the accident, those soft damages that aren't property damage or, or hospital bills. The way they typically decide how to award those is to use what they call a multiplier. And what they do is they take the amount of your medical damages, and they multiply it by something between 1.5 to 3%. So, going back to our 3 people who were injured in an accident. If I have no insurance and I have $10,000 in damages, then my multiplier, if they multiply by 3, gives me $30,000. If I have really good insurance and I have only $2000 that I actually pay. My multiplier only gives me $2000. If I'm the middle person, then I get $15,000. So you see where this creates a situation in which two things happen every single time. One, The person who is uninsured. Gets a much higher level. Of re or of compensation as a result of their damages, because of the fact that the multiplier is always used in these situations. 2, we are giving a benefit to the tortfeasor, that is the person who committed, uh, caused the accident or committed the crime that led to the injury, because that person's insurance is going to pay less. If the person that they happen to injure has insurance. So there is a benefit that goes directly to the tortfeasor and to their insurance company. The other thing that y'all need to remember is that this doesn't just apply to car accidents. The way this bill is written, it applies to any sort of tort, which means that it applies to situations in which someone files a civil case because they were sexually assaulted, for example, because they were trafficked because they were beaten up or because there were some other issue other than just a car accident. So this applies across the board to any sort of tort case. Now, the other thing that we heard a lot yesterday in committee was that this is about fairness. One thing that y'all may not know, if you haven't had to go to court because of an injury or because you were involved in an accident. Is that we don't tell the jury who has insurance. So that means that the jury is not given the information that an insurer is paying these bills. So when we talk about fairness, on the one hand, the responsible plaintiff is being penalized because they carried insurance and they were able to care for their injuries. And on the other, the defendant, the tortfeasor who has insurance isn't required to disclose that an insurance company is paying these bills. So, we're talking about what is already a little bit of an uneven playing field, but what becomes even more uneven and more complicated by creating the system in which we have multiple classes of plaintiffs who may be out there and recovering on damages. And really, at the end of the day, I don't think that Arkansas wants to be in a situation in which we're penalizing people for maintaining their own health insurance and doing what they should. One last thing about, um, the comparators in other states. We all know that the issues of tort reform have been going on for a number of years, and this is I know kind of being referred to as tort reform light. Um, one of the things that has been, uh, put out as a reason to move forward with these types of bills, is that it will somehow reduce insurance costs for Arkansans. In Texas, since they passed tort reform, their insurance costs have risen 69%. Prior to tort reform in Texas, their insurance costs were rising at about a little bit less than 1% per year that has gone up to 1.6 or 1.7% per year since then. Insurance costs have also risen in Missouri and in Oklahoma and in Mississippi and in other states. So we can certainly discuss whether there's causation or correlation, but we can certainly also agree that we can't say that doing this is going to give any sort of intrinsic benefit to Arkansans. It will not reduce their costs. It will create a situation in which our Kansans are treated differently and particular Arkansans who carry good insurance, and it will be a benefit for bad actors, because they won't be required to be responsible for the type of damages that perhaps they ought to be. Some of that is out of our control. We have to acknowledge that the way the insurance industry operates is using these medical damages as a way to determine the rest of those soft damages. We can't, we can't legislate that. away, that is an industry standard. Those decisions are being made at all of those insurance companies outside of the state of Arkansas who are employing adjusters outside of the state of Arkansas to make decisions that affect our Kansans. So that's why I'm a no on this. Representative Hudson has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Brown, you're recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I've had a lot of colleagues come and ask me about this bill and get my thoughts on it and kind of Get rid of all the attorney talk and tell him what it's really doing. And One thing I think that's important that we all realize is that under the law, you're entitled to be made whole. That's a concept that goes back probably to little old England, way back, came over on the Mayflower. And the idea is that if you're injured, if you're hurt, If you have property damage, you're entitled to be made whole. You're not entitled to profit from it, but you're entitled to be put to the position you were in before it happened. Now, when we talk about personal injury, we've got all these different pieces that we're talking about. We have the medical bills. We have maybe lost wages. We have pain and suffering. We have disfigurement if, let's say you lost a finger, had scarring, all these different things. And the issue is, is that there's no way to put a dollar amount on things like how much is your pain and suffering worth? My wife can tell you that if it's me, it's probably worth a million dollars because I want a bunch. But how much is a finger worth? And I know that workers' comp can have some ideas, but how do you figure that out? Well, you do it with a jury trial and you figure out how much is Mema's pain and suffering worth because she had whiplash from getting rear-ended. So Representative Hudson talked about the multiplier. I want to make it clear to people because I've had several people ask me this question. There is nothing legal in the law or anything about the multiplier. That's just a little rule of thumb that personal injury attorneys in the insurance industry have come up with over the years, back when I did insurance defense, I think the rule of thumb was usually about 2.5 times as the most you could expect on a claim. It was just an easy way to value claims to determine, are we going to fight this or not? And usually what that was is you take how much were their medical expenses, multiply it by 2.5 times, and that's probably the absolute upper end you could expect on an out of court settlement for. A car wreck. Now, if you had some sort of extenuating factor, like, let's say a, uh, Semi truck. Well, it's maybe worth a little bit more money because they got more money. Or if it was a kid that got hurt, or someone got seriously hurt. Well, those cases were worth a lot more money. You take those to court for future economic damages, things of that nature. But getting back to the medical bills, that's just one of many components of a personal injury claim. And on medical bills, I think everyone in this in this room, whether you're on, on one side or the other side of this argument would agree with me that hospital billing is a completely made up number. I would compare it to the MSRP on a truck. Before COVID, I'll give you that before COVID. You go to Guay Chevrolet, I want to go buy that Silverado. It's got MSRP on the sticker. It's fantasy numbers, because that truck's not gonna be sold for that number. It's gonna be sold for a number less than that. The out the door price. Or I think even a better analogy. I'm gonna hearken my wife again. I hope she's not watching this. You go to Kohl's or you go to JC Penney's and you buy you a shirt. It's got a little tag attached to that shirt and it says, suggested retail price, $199. And then it'll have a little yellow sticker where they mark it down to 2999, and then, of course, you know, with JC Penney's they're doing their sale of the century every day and they're 20% off because this is a day that ends in Yale and the number is somewhat less. That's what you actually pay for it. Well, if I take that that shirt back because it doesn't fit me because I ate a little too much ice cream, which the ice cream machine is missing, by the way, I don't know if y'all saw that. I take that shirt back. Do I get reimbursed how much I paid for it, or do I get reimbursed how much that sticker was? Everybody in this room knows the answer. It's how much I paid for it. Let's go back to medical damages. You go to the hospital, you're injured, you get a bill for $100,000. We all know that that number that actually paid is somewhat less. It may depend on your exact insurance, where they've done, but it's gonna be less or if you're self pay. Which is another example when my oldest daughter was born. I got a bill in the mail about 3 weeks after she was born, it said pay $3600. So luckily I was in a position. I wrote the check, sent it off. And then later I figured out, wait a second, they didn't run her on my insurance. What the heck? So I called him up, like, oh, we're sorry, Mr. Brown, we missed it. Ran our insurance. I got a refund for $200. So, having all that maternity coverage only save me 200 bucks on her birth, but oh well. But regardless, whether it's the insurance discount or self-paid discount, what the hospital is willing to take is somewhat less. So what does this bill do? This bill simply says, if you go into court and you say you have hurt me medically, I had to go to the doctor because of what you punch Scott Richardson punched me in the nose because I told a stupid joke, and I went to the doctor. I get a bill for $2500 after they do all their rigmarole, it comes down to $500. If I sue Scott Richardson, In court. I can talk about the $2500 bill all day long. I can argue to the jury, it was a $2500 bill and I want punitives based on that. I want a million dollars punitives. I need $50,000 pain and suffering because I was so tore up after he punched me in the nose. I could I was catatonic for a week. But when it comes to the medical bill, All I'm entitled to is to be made whole on the medical piece. And what was I out of pocket? $500. And that's all I'm entitled to, and that's all this bill does. It simply says, regardless of what the made up number was, When it comes to your medical bill piece, you're only entitled to be reimbursed what you either, you actually spent or what your insurance company actually spent on your behalf. You're not entitled to make profit on the medical bill piece. You don't get a check for 30,000. Because your insurance company negotiate down to 70,000 because the self-paid discount was 70,000. That's all this bill does. Another point I'd like to point out is that there's been a lot of talk about this treats different tortfeasors differently. If someone hits you without insurance. That you get $100,000 or let's say you don't have insurance, I'm sorry. Your medical bills $100,000 and for whatever reason, there's no self-paid discount. But if you have insurance, your medical bills are only 70, so you're getting hosed to the tune of $30,000. But one thing that was never mentioned in committee yesterday that I just now realized, not, not 10 minutes ago. No one ever brought up medical liens. We have law on the books, has been for years, that when you go to the doctor or the hospital, or the ambulance or whoever picks you up, and someone else is the fault of your injury. That hospital, that doctor, that provider has a right by law to assert a medical lien on your cause of action. Which means that if I didn't go to court and I sue. Scott, for $100,000. And they've put a lien on my recovery, they are getting the money, not me. It's going to pay that medical bill. And that's, I think, a very important thing. So this idea of we got all these people without insurance that are somehow profiting off because regardless of what the bill is, if you go into court and sue for it, you owe that bill. You're entitled to be reimbursed for that bill. You're not entitled to profit on the bill. And I know there's been a lot of talk about this, but I think that's important. Representative Brown who spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative guys why you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I guess, first, let me begin by saying, I hate to speak against another member's bill. You will rarely see me down here this session speaking against another member's bill. But in this, uh, instance, I kind of feel compelled to do that. There's been a lot of discussion about this. And, you know, we can get into a lot of legalese about it if you want to. I don't think any of you want to hear that. We don't have to get deep into the weeds about it. I want to talk about what this bill actually does what the practical effect. Of this bill is gonna be. And so let me tell you this. Practical effect of this bill. is if you're an insurance company, It's great for you. You love this bill. Why? Because they're gonna make a lot more money. When this bill passes. If you're a person who's been injured through no fault of your own. Who's trying to get paid. I'm talking about our constituents, the people we represent. You're somebody who's been human trafficked. Remember, we passed a bill to give people who've been human trafficked a cause of action. If they have medical bills. We're talking about somebody who's been the victim of sexual abuse. We've given those people, victims of sexual abuse, a civil cause of action against the people who have sexually abused them as children or a rapist as an adult. If you sue them and you've got medical bills. This bill is terrible for you. Because it means you're gonna get less under this law than you would get if we keep the law in place that we have in effect. That's the practical effect of this. We can talk about subrogation, we can talk about liens. We can talk about the constitutionality. We can talk about. The made whole doctrine, we can talk about anything you want to talk about in terms of the legalities of it. I'm gonna talk about what it means where the rubber hits the road. And it means less for your constituents and it means more for the insurance companies, more for the special interests, more for the wealthy business interests, all the people that hire lobbyists who spend millions of dollars trying to influence your decision on this. It's great for them. It's terrible for your constituents. And for that reason, I'm voting no. I would ask you to vote no. I'll also say one of the, the only justification I've really heard. That really makes a lot of sense in support of this bill or makes any sense, really. In support of this bill is that it may Lower insurance rates. When I want to make this clear, it was said yesterday. In the committee. Go, you can go back and watch it. There is no guarantee if we pass this bill, that's going to lower insurance rates. In fact, in many states that have passed bills similar to this. Guess what? The rates didn't go down. They went up No guarantee it's gonna do that. Then the other justification I've heard that might make a little bit of sense. Is that this will help the economy. The, the, in the macro, the overall the economy. And maybe that's true. But I'll tell you this, there's a lot more that we can do in this chamber to help the economy. We all know what those things are. We can continue to lower taxes. We can continue to make Arkansas a better place for people to come visit. We're the number one state in the nation for inbound migration. We act as if that the state of the economy is so bad, the state of Arkans like we're doing so bad that we must pass this bill in order to have any economic development. We'll go back and look at the statistics. Go back and listen to the governor's state of the state address and how great we were doing when we all stood up and applauded for that. We are, we're doing really well. Without this bill. We don't need this bill. A lot of things we can do to help. But it ain't this. So with that Again You're, if you're comparing who this benefits. We know who it benefits to all the people who want it. The wealthy corporations, the special interests, the business community. And it hurts your constituents at the end of the day. I'd ask you to vote no. Thank you. Representative Gazaway has spoken against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Underwood, you're recognized to speak for the bill. Well, I'll keep it short cause I think we've had some really smart people down here, make some good points. I totally agree with Representative Brown. I'll, I'll just say, you know, I think. Uh, the point of this bill really is to reach with the point of Uh, civil litigation is, which is to compensate the injured party, and not to give them a windfall. And all this bill is doing is it's actually covering the actual cost that was incurred. Um, this was brought up in committee and it's been brought up a couple of times today about kind of the benefit. Uh, for Arkansans. Well, I think generally, when there's a climate of heavy litigation that involves high costs. That does impact the pocketbooks of Americans, Arkansans. It impacts doing business as a small business owner and impacts whether you hire new employees or give them a raise or pay a bonus. It impacts the cost of goods and services. And in fact, I was on a call, um, earlier this week, uh, with a rideshare company, and they told me that in some states, 20 to 30% of a fair goes directly to the insurance costs just because of how they're targeted with litigation. So to be clear, I think this is a common sense bill. I don't think civil litigation should be a lottery. It should be about justice and putting somebody back in the position they were in, not paying them, um, uh, for damages that doesn't exist and were never paid. And I appreciate a good vote. Representative Underwood has spoken for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? When I speak for the bill. Representative Eubanks, do you wish to close for your bill? Remember it was a little hard to hear what everybody was saying over there. I heard, uh, Representative Hudson, uh, referenced the multiplier, and I believe Representative Shepherd brought up in committee that there's nothing in rule or statute that requires that a multiplier be used. I, I would suggest that, uh, the The attorney should make the case to the, the jury and they can award the, the necessary Uh, damages based off of the testimony they received with regard to the insurance premiums. Yeah, there's no guarantee insurance premiums are going to go down. They may not rise as fast as what they have been. I don't, you know, we've been working on school insurance 2 years ago, all of a sudden, the schools got hit with 140% increase. It didn't have anything to do with this. It's just things happen that drive costs up. Uh, Representative Gazaway suggested that this only benefits, you know, the large corporations and the insurance companies. I've got information from the National Federation of Independent Businesses that says this is a bigger burden on small businesses than it is on the large businesses. You know, uh, I said in committee yesterday that I'm not connected with any. through because of my profession or business interests or investments with anybody that is going to directly benefit from this. And I think we probably have people in this room, uh, that will directly benefit. One way or the other, depending on how this bill goes. I'm not one of them. I think it's gonna benefit average Arkansans. You know, Again, figures from NFIB, uh, they estimate. That the cost to the average household in this state is $2900 in change. Well, that's a significant amount of money. I'm also not suggesting that if we pass this bill, that burden is going to Be that, it's not going to go to zero. But Port costs are, are, are rising in this country in the state faster than inflation. Arkansas has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the in the country. Based off the conversation I've had with the hospital association and doctors in large part, that's due to the high, uh, cost of, uh, malpractice insurance to the point that it's limiting access of our citizens to medical care. Could this possibly help with that? I think it could. How else does it affecting average Arkansans. If we can do something, whether it's incremental or what, to help improve the business climate in this state and attract more business. Then we'll have more investment in this state, we'll have more jobs in this state. And we've done a lot of things. It was brought up, yeah. Uh, limiting regulation, cutting income tax. Yeah, we're doing things to make Arkansas attractive to business to locate here. I believe this is another step in that direction. The uh, the organization supporting this bill are the, uh, Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel. So I think they're attorneys. But, uh, Arkansas Farm Bureau, Arkansas Healthcare Association, Arkansas Hospital Association, Arkansas Medical Society, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, Arkansas Trucking Association, National Federation of Independent Business and the poultry Federation. Are some of those groups, individuals or groups that representativeaaway reference, I, yes. But at the same time, We benefit From the work that they do in this state. Uh Farm bureaus and insurance company, but they also, uh, represent a lot of farmers in this state. So I believe It is worthwhile. To pass this bill. And to make an attempt to get a handle on, on the rise of, of these costs and the burden that it puts on our state and, uh, our citizens. And with that, I appreciate a good vote. Representative Eubanks has closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1204. Members, we have a pair on the desk. Representative Hope Duke votes yes. Representative Ashley Hudson votes no. This pair was witnessed by Representative Steve Holliwell, Representative Hudson is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Seeing none, please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Madam Clerk, prepare the machine. Everyone voted As everyone voted. Cast up the ballot. With a vote of 71 ya, 18 nays, and 5 present, the bill has passed. Madam Clark, please read House Bill 1214. House Bill 12:14 by Representative Bentley to amend the definition of primary instruction within the long-term care aid Training Act. Representative Bentley, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Speaker, colleagues, much simpler, Bill, for us to discuss today, um, across our state, we have some people, some very important people, certified nursing assistants that take care of the most vulnerable folks in our place, our parents and our grandparents that are in nursing homes is very important that those people are trained correctly. I was honored as my first job out of nursing school to be a director of nursing in a nursing home. And so it's very dear to me to make sure that we train these people correctly. So, in that theory, I had passed a bill a couple of years back to make sure that we had instructors that teach these women correctly because if they don't train them correctly, then we're not gonna have good CNAs out there. So I may have been a little restricted within my bill. I required that the nursing instructors in the past 5 years that had a year's experience at a long-term healthcare facility to make sure that they were up to date on this, on the protocols and taking care of our senior citizens the way they should have. And in doing so with our shortage of nursing instructors and a shortage of nursing. So we've had a problem getting enough nursing instructors for CNA. So this bill takes that down to 10 years. So in the past 10 years, our nursing churches have had a year's experience in a long-term healthcare, and a replacement of that requiring an eight-hour continuing education online that they can do the American Health Association. So, very simple bill just makes it easiest for us to get some good nursing instructors, but continue to make good, good instructors out there to make sure that our parents and our grandparents are well taken care of at the nursing home. So, with that, I'll take any questions anybody might have on this. Seeing no questions, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Bentley has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Bailey, do you wish to close for your bill? Representative Bentley is closed for the bill. Question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1214, prepare the machine, madam clerk. So everyone voted. So everyone voted, cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. The vote of 96 ye, zero nays, and 0 present. The bill has passed. Representative Meeks, for what purpose? Motion pleased. Thank you. Uh, after the announcements reading of the bills, transferring the bills, placing the calendars on the desk, members amending their own bills with their own amendments. Amendments withdrawing their own bills, finalizing resolutions, reading communications, and any remaining committee reports. I move that we adjourn until 11 a.m. tomorrow morning. That's a proper motion. It's non-debatable. All those in favor say aye. O nay You guys have it. Right. You have any committee announcements? Representative Underwood, for what purpose? You're recognized for an announcement. House Judiciary will meet tomorrow Representative Kavanaugh, for what purpose? Recognized for announcement will meet tomorrow. We will not meet. Thank you. Representative Eubanks, for what purpose? House rules will meet 15 minutes upon adjournment. Representative Brooks, for what purpose? Announcement you're recognized House education will meet tomorrow in a joint special order of business with Senate Education to hear Secretary Oliva present the NAEP scores that will be up 15 minutes upon adjournment of the session tomorrow in Big Mac G. Representative Walker, for what purpose? Announcement management will meet tomorrow at 9 a.m. in room 138. Or any other committee announcements. Any other committee announcements. You know, the desk will remain open as needed for the reading of the bills upon completion of the items named in the adjourned resolution. The House will be