Judiciary Committee- House

summer you come often, uh, we're only hearing one bill today. That bill is going to be House Bill 1204 by Representative Eubanks before we get to that, members. I want to give you in case we go a little long today and I get busy and not tell you what I'm anticipating that we're going to hear on Thursday, and of course I will text this out to you also, but we're going to hear a House Bill 1067. House Bill 1007. Senate Bill 13. Now, if for some reason we go in extra early listen and watch the website we may come in, our committee may come in at 9:30 just so we make sure we get through these bills, but I'll let you know, but right now it's going to be 10 o'clock. The Chief Justice is scheduled to be here on Thursday at 10. So we will hear from the Chief Justice first, and that may bump a couple of these makeup bumper bill over till Tuesday, but we shall see. Cecily has um gotten with me. We need to have a picture retake. And so we will be looking at Hopefully next week or so, they have decided they want all the pictures taken in front of the house steps, so we will be picture retaking, so I'll let you know when to uh put your bib and tucker on for that day. All right. First and only bill that we'll be hearing today is House Bill 1204 Representative Eubanks, you're recognized to go to the end of the table and present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. With your permission, I'd like, uh, Justin Allen to join me at the end of the table. Certainly, Mr. Allen, you're recognized to join Representative Eubanks at the end of the table. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you'll introduce yourself, then Representative Eubanks you'll be ready to proceed. Representative John Eubanks District 46. Justin Allen, I'm a partner with Wright, Lindsay and Jennings. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, members I, I know you've been bombarded from both sides on this bill for several days and probably more versed with it than I am, but uh I'm, I'm gonna try to keep this as short as possible as far as what the opening is because I just, for me it's, it's kind of common sense in black and white. Now I'm sure That the questions and the and the testimony that we're going to hear is, is going to change that. But anyway, uh, House Bill 1204. You know, it's 5 lines long, basically the, the meat of the of the bill. And it is an act to establish recovery of damages for necessary medical care, treatment, or services rendered. I was asked to insert uh some language into the bill. It was actually just one word and it was inserted in 3 different places and I'll, I'll just go over that briefly since the, like I said, the meat of the bill is basically just 5 lines. It states that recovery of damages under subsection A of this section for past And that was the word that was inserted, necessary medical care, past necessary medical treatment or past necessary medical services 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 is legally responsible, you know, uh, Representative Richmond ran this bill last session. I was a co-sponsor on that bill. Prior to starting any work on this, I approached Representative Richmond to see if he was intending on, you know, pursuing this again. He indicated that he was not and I asked permission for her to take a run at it, and he said, by all means, he signed on to the bill and of course wish me good luck. Uh, after seeing everybody in the room, I understand why he said that. I don't want to make light of this, but it feels like the playoff game I watched Sunday with everybody here. Uh I don't know how I particularly find myself in these situations, but here I am. This is an issue that I've been interested in for a number of years, even going back prior to when I ran for public office. In fact, uh, The person that ran my campaign is a contract lobbyist. For the opposition. So, I mean, He knows what my position was with regard to tort reform. It was something that I felt strongly about and I think it's something that it's actually good for the benefit of the state as a whole. Now, I understand that it impacts parties differently. I do Certainly don't want to deprive an injured party of any just Recovery of damages. I really don't. But For this particular issue on the, on the recovery of the medical bills. It just seems that what is accepted as full and final payment. Should be the amount that they receive and uh Currently, Arkansas courts allow the plaintiff to recover the build amount even though something less was accepted. That Honestly, this doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, this bill doesn't affect other categories of damages. If, if they're entitled to additional Damages of some sort. Then it should be in those areas. I don't feel like it should be in this particular area. I mean, the bill makes clear that personal injury case, the plainest recovery for medical services. It was What was actually accepted as full and final payment. We've all had hospital bills. We know what the build amount is, and we have seen At least in my case, and I would suspect most of you here that you see or they accept a reduced amount. I don't know why that is the case, but that is the reality that we deal with. Currently. And so, Like I said, I think they just should recover the actual amount that was accepted as full payment. You know, it, it doesn't impact the other categories of damage. And It doesn't affect the ability of the plaintiff to recover amounts paid for by collateral source. If they have insurance and it pays that bill, that the plaintiff can still recover the amount and they get to keep that. So anyway, That's the long and short of it. And I know that this has garnered a lot of attention and a lot of controversy. And uh Unfortunately, I think it's a policy issue that we need to deal with and with that, I will attempt. To answer any questions, I suspect I will be deferring to Mr. Allen for a lot of the questions, especially coming from the attorneys on the committee. Members, are there any questions, uh, representing Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Representative Eubanks, thanks for being in the hot seat for us today. Um, you said that you thought that this is good for the benefit of the state as a whole. Can you explain a little bit what how this benefits the state. Yes. I have some Read reports. Many of which are from the US Chamber of Commerce, and it it shows the impact, the economic impact that Court has on the general public as a whole, through increased costs with regard to either health care or premiums or products. And the search and In particular with regard to Arkansas, it's estimated that the impact on the household is approximately $2900. So Whereas I do not think this bill is going to solve that problem, at least, it will not add to what these higher prices are and what's causing them. So, I looked at the experience of several other states who enacted some version of this before we came in today. Um, it looks like in Maryland, um, despite a cap on damages, it's a little bit different, of course, but premiums rose by 70% after that was enacted, um, in Missouri, um, they enacted some legislation in 2003. Um, and They had an increase of 121% between 2000 and 2003. Um In Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas. All of these states experience significant rate hikes following enactment of some version of a cap on damages or or some version of what you're trying to do here with the, with the medical damages. So why do you think our experience in Arkansas is going to be different than all of these states, including several that surround us. Well, I think, I think you know as well as I do that there are a lot of variables that go into what causes these increases. Inflation just in and of itself is one reason. I contend that by trying to do something, you're limiting the amount of what that increase would be. Now that would certainly be hard to I guess prove empirically, but If, if you're reducing the amount, it's It may be a small effort in order to contain costs, but it's an effort nevertheless, and I think when you're talking about what the estimated impact is on Arkansas families, I think it's significant. One last follow up. You're recognized. Are you familiar with the term subrogation? I wasn't. OK. Are you aware that insurance companies today, today can subrogate claims and get reimbursed um in the event that a plaintiff recovers for medical damages that the insurance companies can make a subrogation claim today and get reimbursed for their costs. I've heard that and I think I'm going to defer to Mr. Allen to further answer that question. is close enough. Can you hear me OK? Uh, certainly, Representative, in, in on the books and in theory, subrogation is a right that a plaintiffs insured has as a practical matter, it happens very, very little because of the obstacles that are associated with it, the, and the made whole doctrine that says that the insurance company cannot subrogate to the payments from the defendant unless the plaintiff is made whole and there's several practical obstacles with that, including that the plaintiff's insurer has to file a separate lawsuit against the plaintiff in the and the defendant has the burden of proving that the plaintiff was made whole and also now has the danger as a result of a recent court of appeals case of having to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees if they failed to prevail. It's anecdotal, I'll admit, I can't give you a list, but all the information I have is it's, it's rare that a plaintiff, even a, I'm sorry, a plaintiff's insurer, even attempts to subrogate, much less is successful with the court. Not. Members, any other questions? Representative Shepherd, you're recognized for your question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So a, a few questions that I have just in how uh and how this uh Law, if enacted, would operate in the real world and some of these I've asked, I've asked y'all in the past. But uh I guess my first question is this, this was enacted back in 2003 through the Civil Justice Reform Act. And was subsequently struck down. Is that correct? A version of it. It was very similar to the primary difference between House Bill 1204 and the provision in the Civil Justice Reform Act is the CGRA provision spoke directly to what could and could not come into evidence. This bill doesn't address that, OK? And, and as, as we all have well know and have been reminded many times that the General Assembly, we don't have, we don't have the ability to determine court rules or process or procedure. Under as I read this, as I read this, this bill, this is strictly restricting what can actually be recovered, but the court rules could be adjusted or a judge could allow continue to allow the full amount of medical bills incurred could continue to allow those to be presented to the jury. Isn't that correct? Yes, that's true. This will be up for the courts to decide how to implement this in terms of discovery and evidence and Roughly half the states in this country have adopted a policy either court-made or legislatively similar to 1204 and their courts and their supreme courts have come at it in different ways. And so a court might allow or uh I guess the Supreme Court by rule or rule of evidence might just continue to allow everything to be submitted and then Either through some type of uh special verdict or interrogatory, some verdict form, asked the jury to tell them how much they're awarding for medical bills, and then the judge might could look at what was actually paid and reduced that. That's how it's done in Maryland, and you believe that that would still be allowed here under this bill. Uh, well, It will be up to the courts, right? But I think if you look again, he's in Maryland as an example, it's policy, it's bill is effectively the same as House Bill 1204 in its Supreme Court made the decision, we're going to allow the full amount of the bill to come into evidence. The jury's not going to be told of a reduction, the jury will render verdicts based on interrogatories, and if they award what we'd expect if there's liability, the full amount of that bill, if it's a hospital bill, the judge would just then remit it post. Well, and I just want to be clear, there's there. You That You do not that it's not the position that that anything in this bill would preclude that. That's correct. And then finally if I may, just a few questions about specific instances, um. A bill that is reduced due to health insurance that there's a negotiated rate, uh, whatever the health insurance company has paid, that would be recoverable. That's correct. If an amount is written off by a hospital and the hospital subsequently gives sends out a 1099 to an injured party for the value of what was written off. Whatever they're owed, whatever they that liability that they owe for taxes, if that's the case, I've seen different instances, but if that's the case, they could recover the amount of tax incurred on what was written off. I think that's right. And then, um, I think my final question. Um Well, let me, I'll come back to me in a minute. I'll put you back in the queue. Not a problem. We'll put you back in the queue. Representing Gazaway, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, There are numerous points that I want to talk about. I think it's going to take some time to address each point, so I'll kind of start with what Representative Shepherd just talked about, and I'll get back in the queue to come back to the other points that I would like to discuss. But let's talk about some of the points that Representative Shepherd just made. The 2003 Civil Justice Reform Act, I think, as you acknowledged, did something very similar to what you're attempting to do here. And it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And that was because that ruling said that it essentially infringed upon the court's power over policy, practice and procedure because it addressed Evidentiary issues which are in the Seul province of the court was that a fair and accurate assessment of what happened with the 2003 law and why it was declared unconstitutional. I would say that's a fair assessment of Johnson versus Rockwell, which did strike that provision, yes. OK, thank you. And So what you've done this time, Which is clever and Typical of a lawyer, a typical lawyer. Move, if you will, is you took that same language essentially and instead of mentioning the word evidence, instead of talking about how it affects evidentiary procedures, you put it in the definition. Of what is reasonable and necessary medical care. So the collateral source rule, which is existed to prevent knowledge about insurance available to a plaintiff in these cases, which is historically been not allowed. The way you've kind of worked your way around what the court, the court's ruling from the 2003 law is you put it in the definition of reasonably necessary medical care. To try to make it definitional. Is that kind of fair about what you've done here? I, I would say we've put it, written it this way to address concerns with regard to Amendment 80 and separation of powers, no question about that. Uh, but I think that I would suggest to you or say to you that this is a policy issue and it is for you guys and your colleagues in the 135 up here to decide, decide what our recoverable damages, and it is appropriate for you to address it in this form. Now, some of you, are going to disagree, but that's the right policy, but I see no problem or issues with this setting forth the policy as drafted in House Bill 1204, and we'll see if the majority of the body agrees. Madam. So in the case where these similar provisions were declared unconstitutional. The court held that it was both evidentiary and substantive. And I'm not sure that you can separate the fact that the collateral source rule operates both as an Evidentiary matter and as a substantive matter. And what you're trying to do here, which I completely understand, is you're trying to make this solely a substantive matter, but the fact remains. That when you put it definite, definitionally in the definition of reasonably necessary medical care. You are affecting the evidentiary standards, the evidentiary aspect of the court and how these damages are submitted. You mean you can't get around the the evidentiary fact that this will have or the effect that this will have. On the way evidence is submitted. It, it's a rose by any other name is still a rose. I agree with you completely, but that is what you're doing here, is it? I mean, is it not? Yeah, this will have an impact on how cases get worked up and tried and what comes into evidence, but in the Edwards versus Thomas case in 2021, while the majority did not overrule Johnson versus Rockwell, with at least one concurrent said we just did and we need to say that. The majority of the court in 2021 involving a case where a young child unfortunately was ejected in a tractor trailer accident. Father did not have her secured in her required child seat. There's a law on the books that remains there today that says the non-use of a child seat will not be shall not be used as evidence. The word evidence is in that statute, that code section of comparatory fault on the part of the parent. The Arkansas Supreme Court in Edwards versus Thomas upheld that statute and said the bright line of Rockwell is not the way to go. The General Assembly in setting policy is inevitably going to touch on things that impact pleading, practice, procedure, and evidence, we just adopt a. test of what is this more substantive? Is this more policy, or is this more pot procedure or evidence. I think that the court can't speak for them, but I feel very confident that the court would look at House Bill 1204, this is a clear statement of policy by the General Assembly. And I appreciate that. I think that's just a point that we're just going to have to disagree on. Um, I have one other uh line of questioning based on Representative Shepherd's questions. One of the things that I heard Representative Shepherd say when he talked to you about that the court would still have the ability, and I appreciate Representative Shepherd's point that certainly The court would still have the ability to allow the full bill to come into evidence and then would simply just by remitted or reduce it following the verdict. And what he said there, and we talked about the court developing rules is that they might. And then he said it again, they might. And then he said it would be allowed and you said it would be up to the court. The point is, I'm not comfortable operating on mites and what, what would be allowed. If that's the case, and that's what we want to do, why don't we just put that in the bill? Well, for the very reason we just discussed, because we all know that if this becomes law, it will get challenged and plaintiffs will contend that it's unconstitutional despite the Edward versus Thomas case that they will try to get the court to go back to Johnson versus Rockwell and that if we start putting in specific evidentiary guidance, restrictions on the court. There's a very good chance the court will rule it unconstitutional, and we will have undermined the entire policy effort that this bill is designed to get out. Go ahead. Then I'll get back in the queue and that's all right. I'm going to let it kind of be free flowing today so we get all the questions out. Appreciate the latitude, Madam Chair. Thank you. And so, you know, one of the examples that you mentioned was that the Maryland courts did this. Can you tell me the last time Arkansas followed Maryland on anything. I haven't done that research, representative. I would, I would be, I would guess to say if you did you'd find that it's but I would note the interestingly, both California and New York have adopted policies along the same lines of this is that your recovery is limited to what was paid and accepted. That's even I think a further point in in my argument that when was the last time we ever followed anything in California or New York did, but nevertheless, if I've got a little bit more latitude on this point, I will say, you'll get to a question. I am and Representative Shepherd mentioned that. the amount could be written off and there could be a 1099, if that's the case. And so the problem is And I want, I want to get your opinion on this. If that's the case, but the issue is When a provider Medical provider accepts money. From my insurance company. The agreement is, is if they accept that money as payment in full. That that's just the insurance companies make them do that when they accept the money. And so the point is there's not going to be that extra amount of money out there to claim on a 1099 and whatever because when they accept it, they accept this payment in full. Wouldn't you agree? Yeah, and maybe I was confused by Representative Shepherd's question. My understanding of it is that if an insurer for a plaintiff negotiates a lesser payment with a healthcare provider such as a hospital that reduced amount will not be taxable to the plaintiff. There's IRS guidance. on that. I'll get back in the queue. I'm not sure we have anybody representing Shepherd, do you want to get back in now? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and just, uh, before I get to the question to clarify, When I'm talking about a 1099, I'm talking about an instance where there's not health insurance involved where a provider writes it off just unilaterally or because it was negotiated. I have seen instances where those providers attempt to send a 1099, and that, that whatever is taxable which or the amount of tax owed would still be recoverable under this bill. That's right. And then, and I, the reason I'm asking these questions, uh, and I have a couple more here is I think that they're on both sides of this issue. There's a lot of uh Theories about what it is and isn't, and so I think it's helpful to ask these things if medical bills are owed at the time of trial. And they have not been written down. There's just a it's whatever the bill is. That clearly is still recoverable under this bill. I would agree with that. Um, and then finally, with regard to future medicals, I know that reps of Eubanks talked about that, that, that maybe the draft bill was changed to make clear it's all on past, but nothing here impacts future recovery for for future medicals. I would agree with that. OK. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Representing Gazaway, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to go to another line of questioning. I appreciate that part of the debate, but I would like someone to explain to me. Representative Eubanks. How this actually benefits. The average Arkansan. Who goes to work every day. Has an insurance policy that they pay for for themselves and their families, $550 a month. They pay their insurance provider to negotiate and pay these bills for them in the event that they're ever hurt. How does this bill really help them? If they're injured. I just, I'd like to hear that. Well, as I stated earlier, I mean, I can, I can quote you some findings from different sources. I know they would be argued that they're probably biased, but the impact, the economic impact that this has on society as a whole. Increase his cost, you know. Yeah. Your specifically referring to people with insurance, correct? OK. Now, It's my understanding that if you have insurance and the insurance pays the medical bill, you can still recover the amount of the claim. So Is that not correct? If you want to I mean Mr. Allen, would you like to Pine on what representative you think just stated what I would an observation I would make Representative Gazaway is that in Representative Hudson got to this earlier, and that is what what's this going to do for, for the average Arkansan and for a family um and and one thing I would say is any one of us could be a defendant as easy as we could be a plaintiff, whether that's us individually or our businesses or our employers, so we have to consider that as well. And second is, will this in of itself drive down the cost of insurance for individuals or businesses, probably not, but I would, what I would say to you is don't, I don't think it would be a good strategy for the General Assembly to throw up his hands and say, all the heck with it. There's nothing that we can do that's going to impact insurance costs. I think that if you have a bill in front of you that makes sense, it's fair, and it's good policy, and it should, and it could impact those costs, you should move forward with that. Um, and there's a lot of stuff in the of what's driving the insurance costs. This is just one of them. It's not a panacea. It's not going to be a flip of the switch, but it certainly makes sense from a math standpoint and from an insurance standpoint and actuarial standpoint that if the insurance companies on behalf of their defendants are not paying these amounts over and above what the healthcare payer provided that the cost of insurance goes down. Can I guarantee that? Of course not. Of course not. And if I could give you an example that I've experienced that lease was relayed to me. I've been a farmer most of my adult life, and I have a a farm implement company in my district and every spring they have a sale, uh, it's mainly selling hay equipment, so they have a sale on Net wrap and blades for mowers, etc. etc. and they'll have some of their equipment dealer reps there to showcase maybe new machinery. And this, this happened prior to ever being elected to the General Assembly and, you know, this particular piece of equipment was manufactured in Europe. You know, we were having a conversation. I said, why, why are all these things being made out of, out of country now and Of course This was this individual's opinion, but he says it's because of liability. And so, You know, I can't say definitively that by passing this, You know, we're gonna prevent manufacturing from moving offshore, but if they, if we're adding to the cost of doing business, whether it's small business or large business, I think we ought to be taking steps to try to reduce those costs. And, you know, Like I said earlier, I can, I can quote this information from the US Chamber of Commerce and and and from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, but you know they estimate that tort burden per household in Arkansas it's $2,942. Now, you know, The cost of living in Arkansas is low, wages are not that high. I would, you know, I would suggest that $2900 is a substantial amount, you know, we've tried to cut taxes, try to reduce the burden on families and everything, so This is just another burden on families, I believe. Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So We've talked a lot about how this would actually benefit Arkansans and, and I'm going to come back to this idea of tort burden. But what do you make of the fact that we're now going to create multiple classes of plaintiffs. So if I am in a car accident with Representative McCullough, and I have no insurance. Representative McCola has insurance, um, and maybe Representative Beatty was, was, was also injured in the accident. He's got different insurance than, than what Representative McCullough has. Depending on I'll get the most, right? Because I don't have any insurance. I'm going to recover more than either of these two by virtue of the fact that I am uninsured. Because I don't have an insurance company negotiating on my behalf, so I'll have big bills, right? And then Representative McCullough may have Just a basic plan. And so she may recover a little bit less than me, but, but more than representative Beatty, who's got a Cadillac plan, um, and so we're all going to be treated differently in, in the case of all three being injured in the exact same way in the exact same accident. Based upon what type of insurance we have or if we're uninsured. So what benefit does this really give to insured Arkansans when really the, the, the best place to be in this, in this scenario, I guess, is to be uninsured. Is that right? So first I, I would take issue if, if you're, you're saying that in every single instance that an uninsured pays the full amount of the bill. I've got plenty of resources here that speak to that issue, but here's a 2021 statement from the American Hospital Association that says, quote, the uninsured pay little or nothing and talking about what I think you misunderstand. If I'm injured by a tortfeasor and the tortfeasor is insured. You know, I don't have insurance that's paying any of my claims, so I'm going to have a big bill. It's not that the tortfeasor is uninsured. I understand. You're saying the plaintiff is uninsured. And what I'm saying is, while in some cases the uninsured may have to pay that full amount of that bill, that is not the case in every instance. Again, the American Hospital Association saying the uninsured pays little to nothing. Now that still creates in your scenario, differing plaintiffs under similar circumstances. What I simply say to you is what's different among each of them is what they paid for their medical bills. And what they paid for their medical bills, where this bill would be saying is what you recover from the defendant and perhaps the difference in what they paid in premiums, correct? that could impact the, the negotiations, but I don't have any data to suggest that, but yes, if you're insured with Blue Cross, they're going to have an opportunity to negotiate with the hospital, unlike an uninsured would. But I'm not As if I'm insured plaintiff in this area, I'm not going to get a reimbursement of my premiums either, am I? So I'm gonna, if I got the Cadillac plan, I'm paying more for my premiums and I'm getting less for my medical bills than somebody who paid less and, and I'm not getting anything out of this, right? I would say you would get 100% of your medical bills because they paid the hospital and the hospital accepted it as final, but we are, you agree, we're going to create different classes of plaintiffs, correct? Yeah, we could come up with some hypotheticals with that, sure, on both extremes. OK. I want to go back to the idea of, of the tort burden. How is that calculated? How is it calculated that my household is affected in the amount of $2900 a year. Where does that come from? Well, I came from the US Chamber of Commerce, how they made this calculations I do not know or how National Federation of Independent Businesses is right that those figures as well. I'm not privy to the calculations that they made or how they arrived at those. Don't you think that's important information for us to be able to assess. I mean, if you're going to say that something cost me $3000 a year and it's costing every Arkansan $3000 a year. I'd sure like to know how it's calculated, wouldn't you? I would suspect that we accept the numbers or calculations from different organizations all the time in this body, and so I also believe that I could probably inquire and find out what those calculations were and how they were arrived at, but thank you, I'd be interested in getting this. Representing Collins, you recognized for a question. Thank you, um, Representative Ebanks, I want to come back to something you were talking about with regard to the farm equipment and the burden of compliance with liability, uh, requirements. So, you know, if you're talking about the burden of liability on companies and the amounts they have to pay if we reduce the amounts they have to pay, who is getting less? Well, I suspect that if if companies have moved out of the country, then we have less employment, so I think we as citizens are getting less because we have less opportunities, but am I suggesting that the price of the equipment is less? No, that's not really what I'm getting at. Sorry, let me rephrase it. Uh, when you talk about liability and what a company has to pay when they are liable, they pay that to an injured person, right? So wouldn't it be true that the injured person is getting less. If you have higher liability costs. That's what we're talking about when we talk about liability, right? If you reduce the cost of liability, you reduce the amount that can be recovered by injured people, isn't that right? If it's OK, I'll try to address that and this may not be speaking, Representatives, what you're saying, but I think it may be. Under House Bill 1204, if it is enacted as law, what plaintiffs in Arkansas have traditionally been recovering will go down in cases where medical bills are discounted or negotiated. I'll acknowledge that the plaintiff will recover less, but of course, the argument here is that it should that plaintiff should be recovering less because those amounts don't even exist as damages, but I will acknowledge it will decrease that. Recovery. So I guess it's time back to Representative Ganzaway's question, in ordinary Arkansan who gets injured will not really benefit under this bill except in the broader sense that there's, you know, what you're saying about overall costs. They will recover less. OK, thanks. Representing Casaway, you're recognized for a question? And that's my exact point. And so I want to go back to that because I asked the question, I think very clearly. How will this benefit the average Arkansan who pays their insurance premiums every month. who are ultimately injured in a wreck. And I love you all both, but you sat down there for 5 minutes, and I never once heard a straight direct answer to that question. You talked about the macro effect it was going to have on maybe on the overall economy, statistics nationally from the Chamber of Commerce. My question, which was very clear, and I'll ask, give you another opportunity to answer on the micro, not the micro level, the micro level. How does this help? The Arkansan out there who pays their health insurance premiums, who's injured in a wreck. How does this benefit them? The The hope from this and we've discussed this as it relates to insurance costs. The hope is this that will bring reality. To what damages are and that it will impact the economy. It will impact the average Arkansans employer, their small business, their insurance premiums, God forbid today they might end up being as a defendant that this law spread around and help out again, families, business owners, employees, and setting the level straight, the field level that your damages in this category of health care bills are what was paid and accepted. Now, can I Detail for you, how much money it's going to save me or you or anybody. No, I, I, I can't give you that data, but again, I would go back to the principle of I think that this makes good sense. I think it's good policy, and that I think it is designed to help with those costs and the cost of living. Will it get us there that in one fell swoop? No, of course not. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so, and you made this statement a couple of times. I meant to talk about it, that a person can be a defendant as easily as they can be a plaintiff. Well, the fact of the matter is, I think you would have to agree with me. This bill only benefits defendants. This bill does not benefit plaintiffs. This bill Restricts What plaintiffs are allowed to offer in terms of their medical bills. They can only offer what was paid by insurance. This bill only affects plaintiffs. This bill does not affect defendants. Would you agree with that? It, it, it affects your microphone on, please. It, it affects both, but, yeah, I follow what you're saying is that if this is implemented as the policy, the defendant will only have to pay what was paid and accepted, which is less than what is being paid under current law, yeah, so benefits the defendants, but let me say this, one of the arguments that I've heard it's a fair point. One of the arguments that I've heard is that we should do this out of transparency, OK, because The the the factfinder, the jury should know if there's insurance available that the plaintiff has that's paid a bill, that it's only transparent to let them be aware of the fact that there was insurance that paid a bill for the plaintiff. And that's what this bill does. Right? I mean, it limits it at what a third party is paid. What it it limits your recovery for past medical care to what was paid and accepted, whether that's paid by the plaintiff or their insurance company. But what this bill does not do, so that's on this side of the equation. Let's look at the other side of the equation. The defendant also has insurance too, and you know as well as I do. I've tried jury trials where the, the mere mention of the word insurance. If you breathe the word insurance. It's a mistrial. And what the what the this bill does not require. It requires transparency for the plaintiff. But it does not require transparency for the defendant. In other words, does not let the factfinder know that the defendant is sitting over there with a $25,000 50,000 dollars, $100,000 policy of insurance to cover any damages that they may be responsible for. It doesn't create transparency for the defendant to let the factfinder know that that attorney that they're sitting over there next to, that they didn't have to come out of pocket to pay that attorney, but that in fact, that attorney's fees are being paid for by the insurance company. It does not create transparency on that side of the equation. It only creates transparency, if you will, on the side of the equation for the plaintiff. Would you agree with that? Well, I think there's an assumption in there, I think, respectfully, that I would disagree with, which is that as a result of this bill, the jury will be told that the plaintiff has insurance and that that insurance negotiated a lower bill that will not happen. The jury still will not be told that the plaintiff has insurance and the jury will not be. told, if I can, uh, Texas this bill is very similar and actually modeled after the Texas law and the Texas Supreme Court in interpreting and upholding its law, again, that looks pretty much like this, says, quote, of course, the collateral source will 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 a healthcare provider adjusted its charges because of insurance. So maybe the word transparency. Representative has been thrown around a little loosely, uh, but Again, I, I, it's going to be fair on both sides in, in my opinion with regard to the collateral source rule once again this bill is simply saying when it comes to your past healthcare damages, you recover what the hospital or the healthcare provider accepted as full and final payment. Follow up, Madam Chair. You're so and I agree with you. I think the word transparency has been thrown around loosely, but if we're going to use it, I mean, do you have any objection to transparency for me means transparency for thee that you'll agree that uh if we're going to have transparency for the plaintiff in terms that they can only submit the amount. I know you, I know what your answer is going to be, but if they can only submit the amount of medical damage that was paid for by their insurance. Which they've paid premiums for, for the insurance company to negotiate that bill down for them. If we're going to limit that. Would you agree to allow transparency for the defendant and let the fact finder know that they've got a $25,000 policy of insurance to pay the damages and that they, their attorney who's sitting over there next to him is being paid for by the insurance company and they didn't have to come out of pocket and go hire a lawyer. I mean that seems only fair to me. Well, again, this bill, I respectfully submit doesn't take away any of those protections from the plaintiff, but if you want to knock down the collateral source rule for both sides. Let's have that conversation. Which I do think would be a fairer conversation. Last point. So Representative Hudson brought up This idea, part of what I think the argument is, is that the collateral source rule exists. So that everyone, because one of the arguments I've heard for this bill. is the idea of fairness and that this bill creates fairness. But part of the rationale behind the collateral source rule. is that it treats every plaintiff equally. Whether I'm insured, whether I'm not insured whether I've got Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare, no care. The fact of the matter is, as a plaintiff, I get to introduce the full bill which we've come to equate with the reasonable. Uh, the value of reasonably necessary medical care. The full bill. is what I get to introduce. Regardless of whether I'm insured or whether I'm not. That's the current law, yes. This changes that. That's correct. So that if I'm insured, And I pay my premiums every month. $550 for me and my family, plus I go to work every day to get the discount. Pay my premiums every month. I'm gonna be limited to the amount that my insurance company paid for my medical bill. Meanwhile, the person who doesn't have insurance. gets to introduce the whole bill. That's, that will be the effect if we pass this, that assumes that the uninsured has to pay the full bill. I've got numerous sources that say that is not the case, but yes, I would submit that it's treating everyone fairly when it comes to this one category of damages that you recover what was accepted. That's, and can that result in these outlier situations that you and Representative Hudson are talking about. Yes, it can, but I don't think that's gonna be the typical case, but yes, that can occur where somebody with a similar injury under similar circumstances have differences in what the past health care bills were because of the decisions made by health care providers primarily hospitals and most often as a result of negotiations with insurance. Well, and the point, Madam Chair, thank you. The point that I would make is that In your calculus of this situation about limiting, you know, in terms of fairness, limiting what a plaintiff can introduce to the value that insurance paid for them. ignores the fact That they have paid for that benefit month after month. of whatever the full bill may be, the fact that they had another source that pays that. Number one is not relevant, but number 2, I think the argument is that they paid for that because every month they paid $550 a month for that insurance, which you know as well as I do. You may not use for 15 years. I may pay my insurance $550 a month every month for 15 years and never use it. But the time that I use it. They're going to limit me on my medical bill damages to only the amount that my insurance company paid. Which is why I paid those premiums was for them to negotiate me a good deal. Therefore, I shouldn't be limited. To only introducing that amount, I should be able to introduce the full amount of the bill. What, what's your response to that? Because it seems that every time I hear an answer to this, it ignores the fact that the plaintiff has been paying premiums every month and the plaintiff got every benefit of those premiums because the insurance company paid the hospital bill. OK, well, we just have to disagree. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have some individuals who have signed up on this bill. Uh, the first person to speak against this bill is Justin Minton. Mr. Minton, if you'll come to the end of the table, identify yourself, you'll be recognized to speak against the bill. Yeah, be sure to turn the microphone on. I believe it's on. OK, great. You're recognized to um introduce yourself and you'll be recognized, you're recognized to speak. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name's Justin Minton. I'm an attorney in Saline County. Uh, I do mostly personal injury cases, also had a lot of construction defense type cases. I'm also a former senior insurance adjuster, um, worked for Progressive for 7 years, so for over 20 some odd years. I've been on all sides of the insurance industry. So I feel like I have some specialized knowledge in this area to, to inform you on how this bill would work in the real world, uh, and if you look at it just kind of on its face and it and it and it sounds. Reasonable that Hey, we're only going to pay the actual damages. I mean that if you stop right there, that sounds really Sensible, but that's not exactly what happens in the real world. Uh, I would submit to you one that the bill is unnecessary to begin with, and in reality, it has a huge negative ripple effect against Arkansans. When I talk about it being unnecessary. The Arkansas model jury instructions, uh, it's 2204 in fact, actually already states that a defendant does not owe a medical bill that is not reasonable. So if the charges on a medical bill are unreasonably high. They can already reduce that bill. They don't have to pay it if it's, if it's unreasonable. Likewise, if the charges, even if the bill is reasonable, if the treatment was unnecessary, they don't have to pay it at all. So that's already the law, so I don't Really understand what this law is trying to fix, but as a former insurance adjuster, I've evaluated thousands, thousands of claims. So I know how this will actually affect people 98% of the time because we're talking about going to trial on some of these cases. That's, that's maybe 2% of the time. The other 98% of the cases, this is, this is what's really going to happen is it's putting into effect Marxist price controls and I understand that there have been comments. that the bill does not affect non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and the like, and that that's just not true. Because me as an insurance adjuster, when I'm evaluating a case and I'm looking at it. If the charges are reasonable and necessary, I'm going to use that base amount of the meds as a multiplier. So, for example, I have 2 victims hit by a drunk driver. One of them 100% service connected disabled veteran has Tricare and Medicare. His bills get reduced from 30,000 to 10,000. If I use a multiplier on his case of 1.5 to 2, his case is worth 15 to 20. I take another victim that is completely uninsured, same medical bills, same injuries, his bills get reduced from 30,000 to nothing because they're uninsured. That case has worked 4500 to $60,000. And the reason for that is because our veteran paid a service to his country and received Tricare and Medicare in exchange for that service. Let's say there's another victim. Let's say there's a single mother works two jobs, one of which just to have UnitedHealthcare so that she can Have Health insurance for kids in the event something like this happens. UnitedHealthcare may pay a little bit more than Tricare, but it's still going to reduce those bills from say 30 to 20, and when the adjusters evaluating that case with the same multiplier. Her case is worth. 30 to 40 So is the uninsured's case worth 2 to 3 times more than the others, and I know there's been some talk about, well, the bill's going to get negotiated. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. nobody knows at that point in time, but the question is, why would Mom even pay for health insurance. She never even meets her deductible anyway, and then something like this happens, so why even have the health insurance to begin with. So in reality, the bill does two things. It without a doubt 100% of the time penalizes responsible socially productive people by anchoring the amount of their non-economic damages to a lesser number. And 2, and probably even worse is it rewards bad behavior by allowing bad actors, for example, a drunk driver to take credit for our veterans service or our single mom's health insurance premiums. I mean, that's it, that's how it works. In the real world and I represent a lot of law enforcement, a lot of veterans, the two most people, groups of people that get run over the most law enforcement, postal workers, because they're on the side of the road half the time. And there's been some talk about subrogation and not made whole and all that, and I just want to point out subrogation happens all the time. Most plans in Arkansas, and I want to get into federal versus state law too much, but not made whole doctrine is Arkansas law. If somebody has a federally funded plan, we have to pay that back. A matter of fact, if we don't pay that back, they can come in and freeze our assets. They can freeze my law firm's assets for not paying that back. I've had that threat before. So subrogation happens all the time. My veteran's case, for example, His case gets devalued from 30 to 10, and we got to pay that $10,000 back to Tricare. That is a federally funded plan. They are not subject, Arkansas is not made whole doctrine. So I just want to point out that that happens every day. There's only maybe 2 or 3 plans in Arkansas. I think Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arkansas. QualChoice and Health Advantage. That are subject to the not made old doctrine and even and not all of those. are subject to not made whole because, for example, your, your postal worker is going to have a federally funded plan that has to be paid back. That's it. That's how it works in a nutshell, and I'm happy to take questions if anybody has any. Representative Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minton, for your testimony, because you've touched on what's really, what's really the issue here. You would agree cases with regard to medical expenses. That's not the meat of the case. That's not where the real value is, correct? It's, it's the other damages that are recovered. And um You've talked about the multiplier that attorneys on both sides, plaintiffs and defendants. evaluate cases based on, in part based on the medical expenses, but you would agree that's not in law. Right. There there's nothing in the law that says that those damages are based in any way on the medical expenses. correct? What, what are those damages just for the benefit of the committee, what are those damages really based upon the non-economic damages, yes, well, I mean, there has to be some sort of damages. I mean it could be, it's the nature and extent and duration of the injury, liability, was there some sort of aggravating factor, uh, DWI, drugs, texting. Uh, and then to me the witness potential of the party, which is why I'm happy to represent a lot of law enforcement and veterans because they make my job easy because they make good witnesses. So those three things is, is basically what you Value a case on and to me, I just adjust the multiplier up or down. Depending on the severity of the injury, the witnessed potential of the party. And any aggravating factors. And, and that would also include pain and suffering, mental anguish. There are others, other recoverable damages. And you would agree insurance adjusters are familiar with the laws of the various states in which they're evaluating cases, correct? Yes. And so, I mean, I think you've touched on an issue that that this bill undoubtedly, uh, should it pass. There's probably the onus will be on attorneys that no longer to evaluate cases in the same way, correct, yeah, and, and that the medical expense that to be recovered, as you touched on previously. Under the law, you're just entitled to the reasonable medical expenses, and the point of the law is to put you back to the point that you would have been had you not had the injury, correct. And this bill, like again, it kind of goes back to there's a lot of things being said on both sides and as to what it ultimately ends up doing, but still under this bill, you're able to recover the expenses that you're out of pocket. On the the medical expenses that, that your clients were out of pocket Well, Under this bill, I would not be able to recover like my client's health insurance premiums or anything like that, is that? Correct, but you can recover the you can you can recover the amount of what is actually paid or owed. Right, I mean, they're gonna reduce the most insurance companies are going to reduce the bills regardless and and also just not to secure at the end of the table to to ask the question that that This is also not just about insurance. This could be about any, any reduction in what is owed by hospital or any other provider. Yes, that's all the questions I have. Representing Gasaway, you recognize. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to follow up on some things that Representative Shepherd said. With regard to the medical bills, he said that this is not where the real value of the case is. Now you've been an insurance adjuster, right? Right. And now you're An attorney you've kind of seen both sides of this, right? Yes, sir. And Would you, you would agree with me that the insurance companies modus operandi. is essentially denied, delay, defend. Is that right? And what the real value of a case is depends. You, you can agree with me or not, I'm asking your opinion. What the value of the case is, sometimes depends and it, the only real money that may be in the case that you could make would be, uh, based on some of what the medical damages are. I mean that these things vary. Yeah, I mean, a lot of times there may be 30 400 $50,000 in medical bills and you know, the state minimum required auto insurance limits is only 25,000. So sometimes there's there's most of the time clients are not going to be made whole as it stands. Right. So my point is, I guess in some cases, the only, maybe the only real recovery that you're going to see is a combination of doing a lot of different things in order to try to maximize the value of that case and get the injured person some money because the insurance companies, we know how they do business, and it's not if if you had a claim, it all sounds good. We're all in good hands, I know, but until you have to make a claim, right. And so Um The next thing is Representative Shepard mentioned that. Uh The medical expenses you're only entitled to the, the reasonable medical expenses. Well, that's Almost right, but it's the reasonable value. Of those medical expenses, not necessarily what insurance paid. Because what insurance pays does not represent necessarily what the reasonable value of that service was, I I would guess, venture to guess, you know better than me, so I'm asking your opinion. If you ask a doctor who had to do an emergency surgery. That the insurance company paid $3000 to if that's the reasonable value of the service they provided. They wouldn't agree with that. But they take it, right. Go ahead. I, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Well, I mean, it gets a little bit convoluted because you're, you know, then you, if you want to bring in health insurance, for example, I mean health insurance. Hospitals and doctors all the time agreed to reduced rates. To be paid by health insurance, but they do that to be put in their network. I mean, health insurance, it's a collective bargaining agreement whereby an insurer agrees to insure a group of people and they say, hey doctor, hospital, we're going to put you on our network and send you all of our business in exchange, we want a reduced rate, um, in the hospital or the doctor where we negotiate a reduced rate and That's profitable to them as well, but they can't enter into that profit sharing agreement without my clients. Insurance premiums. I hope I'm answering your question, but That's, that's one thing. Speaker Evans, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Minton, I, I wasn't quite clear on something you said early on. I want to go back to Representative Gassway, Representative Hudson, who questioned Some of the data that Representative Eubanks had provided as far as amount of savings, I believe Representative Gassway mentioned it a macro level. They were questioning him on, on the formulations of how that data was computed. Um You may mention in your, in, in your testimony of a multiplier and I believe Speaker Shepherd said that's not something that's in law, so can you explain to me, give me clarity on Where does that, where does that multiplier come from? That's just how insurance companies and adjusters value claims. I mean, it's they start most of the time by putting the medical bills into a system Allstate uses, for example, Colossus, uh, Progressive has one, I forget the name of it, but they basically just run these medical bills through a computer and it spits out a number, but the minute suits filed or an attorney gets involved, they pull it out and, you know, I don't know where the 3 times the medical bills came from, uh, you know. I hear that that's a formula that you have used in trying to compute a settlement. Yeah, I mean, it's not as, it's not a bad for insurance but good for the one who's going to benefit from the increase. No, I mean, it's fair but all the way around. I mean it, so speaking of fair, uh, I don't know that I've ever been referred to as a Marxist, so I would like for you to explain what you meant when you said what this policy does is establish Marxist pricing. Well, basically what it does is, is it takes my client's health insurance premiums and redistributes it to a bad actor. Uh, could you expand on bad actor. I think what we're talking about here is What is owed, what is paid, and nothing on the top of that. So who, if, if, if the, the ones involved in this have negotiated this. It's paid in full. Then who becomes the bad actor? Well, a drunk driver, for example. I mean, let's say a drunk driver hits my client, uh, my single mom who's been paying premiums for 5 years, never, never met her deductible. um, her insurance has that collective bargaining agreement with some hospital based on Our premiums and they reduce our medical bills. We're there's no element of damages anywhere in Arkansas law where we can recover our clients' premiums, so you should be able to figure out what the up charge is to that with this arbitrary multiplier formulation. Yes I'm, I'm not 100% sure I'm following you, but. Perp C Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I want to go back to just for clarity's sake for the members of the committee when you talk about the 3 times or 1.5 times multiplier. I mean, that, that's industry custom, correct? That's not a number that you've made up or that attorneys here in Arkansas made up that's, that's what the insurance industry uses, is that correct? Yeah, so a lot of times use a multiplier. I mean, and like I said, they just, there's no specific rule of thumb on that they adjust it up or down depending on damages, liability. Witness potential of the parties, because they'll pay more if, if a, if a child gets hurt, right? You know, they'll pay more, that's worth a little bit more for you, um, but if it's an older person, the insurance company is gonna want to pay less, so, you know, um, the, the value of life is certainly part of this as far as insurance companies, um, Representative Gazaway asked earlier, um, uh, uh, to Representative Eubanks how this benefits our Kansans, um, because you've had experience as an adjuster, I'd like to ask you sort of the, the flip of that. How does this benefit, how does this Bill benefit insurance companies. Uh, well, I mean, it cuts down on the overall payout at the end of the day because I mean the State Farm already does this, you know, they, the law is that the only other reasonable about a medical bills. So as an adjuster, when I get the medical bills in, I'm running those bills through a system some some uh insurance companies, we use Mitchell Medical and what it'll do is it'll look for those contractual rates that are out there with insurance companies, you know, figure out what the fare charges are in the geographic region. And it'll go ahead and adjust down those bills as it stands, but Remind me what you're questioning is again. I don't feel like I'm just, how does this, how, how does this bill benefit insurance companies? I mean, it's going to lower their payouts dramatically and, and it's going to do that. At the expense of people who have paid health insurance premiums or have served their country, have some sort of um health insurance. It's it's not going to do it. It's gonna do and that's gonna do that 100% of the time. It may or may not affect people who are uninsured. Who knows? I mean, sometimes providers reduce bills, sometimes they don't. Are these insurance companies primarily based in Arkansas? No. So we're, so this bill would essentially benefit insurance companies that are based out of state. Sure, yeah, I mean State Farms in Missouri, Travelers in Minnesota. I mean, they're Lloyd's of London's in England. Our most um most injured parties, are they from Arkansas? That you work with them, yeah. OK, thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, thank you, Mr. Mitten, for your time here today. Uh, we have no one who you're dismissed. Thank you. Uh, we have no one who's signed up to speak for the bill, so the next person to speak against the bill and I see Steven, but Steven, you need to go back to grammar school and learn how to write your last name. So I can't read the Ferguson maybe again I apologize. That was my handwriting Steven. Finnegan Finnegan, Mr. Finnegan, if you'll come to the end of the table, I apologize, uh. For making a quip at you, I'll make that quip at Mr. Minton. Mr. Minton, you need to go take a handwriting lesson, you know, doctors and lawyers, they just like to write scribbly. Sure, that's our way of keeping people from knowing exactly what we're writing about, I don't mean to offend anyone. Oh, you're not, you're not. We're, we're we're a good group you're, you're recognized to come in, have a seat, turn your microphone on, uh, state your name for. the record and then you may, uh, make your statement. Yes, ma'am. Uh my name is Stephen Finnegan. Many of you might know me by my other moniker on the radio, Steve Finnigan from the Steve Finnegan Show on KARN, uh, Madam Chair, with your permission, may I address the speaker? No, uh, we, no, no, we address the committee as a whole. I wanted to thank him for something, actually. Well, Are you OK with that, Mr. Speaker? We'll find out, Mr. Finnigan, you're you address the pleasure of participating at the state government level where after I came back from being mobilized for Operation Enduring Freedom. And uh Governor BB Put together a very bipartisan group of citizens and legislatures to do a veteran's yellow ribbon task force, and I was one of the members of that task force. And for years since 2008, we've been asking for a separate committee to address veterans and military issues in the state of Arkansas, and I know you were I'm with Toby this morning and you're the first speaker to do that. So, sir, I applaud you. I was the commander of the American Legion Post here in Little Rock and the state vice commander, so I'm very passionate about veterans' issues, obviously, and I just wanted to say thank you for that. I So Mr. Fang and Mr. Speaker will always take a, a compliment on the record, so he's got it now for posterity's sake, so we'll, we'll probably see that again at some point in time, you know, it's uh I, I don't get too many Democrats that will come on the show with me, but Representative Hudson came on, although we might disagree with policy issues, I certainly consider her a friend. So you other Democrats are on the committee. Don't be afraid of me. You can come on too. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Finnegan. Now let's get to the heart of the matter, right, to your point. Thank you. Yes, I may have been that person that Justin Minton was just referring to because uh I served active duty. Actually, all three components of the Army active National Guard and Army Reserve. So when I retired, I qualified for Tricare. I also managed with the help of the army to break myself and I'm also 100% service connected disabled vet. And I am absolutely grateful. from the bottom of my heart. And I've said this on the radio many times to the American taxpayers that fund the health care that I received from Central Arkansas VA healthcare system. With that said, I had an accident. And I don't want to get in trouble like President Trump did because I signed the non-closure agreement as well. Uh, on 4:30, I had a person rear end me that was texting. And this person had minimal coverage and I was treated by the VA. And if you go to the VA right now and pull medical records, which I just had to do on top of every veteran pulling medical records or anybody that's requesting medical records from the VA will get on a letter that says We want to protect the American taxpayer of this involves any type of subrogation you required by federal law to do that. So that is indeed what Mr. Minton was just talking about. Uh, because we had that. And the federal government doesn't care. They've got oodles of attorneys that, you know, to go up against a smaller firm, the VA has their own legal staff as well as the Department of Justice backing them up. So they certainly have the legal firepower that may not be available to the average citizen. Well, they spoke about the collateral source rule and the offset of medical bills and not exactly applied to me, uh, because the government is gonna do what the government's going to do, and there's not really anybody that can stand up to him, and that includes, you know, the states, uh, constitutionally, the federal law supersedes state laws, so that again this would be a harmful bill to veterans. There are Arkansas. has a higher per capita of veterans than most states in the union. And when you add the VA disabilities or, and God bless you, the legislature that took the retirement pay, uh, because our neighboring states didn't have an income tax on that, and you make veterans want to retire and stay in Arkansas. Most of them are older like I am, so they don't have children in school that are using The school system, but they're paying taxes in the velocity of the money that the veterans spend into the state economy is quite helpful. Um It comes down to fundamental fairness, I suppose, is really where I thought about this, that equal protection under the law is a hallmark of American jurisprudence. And that This bill will set up different classes like Mr. Minton pointed out, uh, probably those of us that are receiving care from the VA are are going to get the, the least amount, uh, because of the multiplier, and I understand that, you know, insurance companies in the business to make money and the less you pay out, the better it is for them. So I would ask the committee, you know, to take into consideration all the veterans that are in Arkansas, uh, And please don't pass this, you know this is a system that has worked well. The insurance company has attorneys that are going to look after their interest, and we have attorneys that are going to look after ours and, and Mr. Minton, for the record, is my attorney that helped me through this automobile accident. So I've dealt with this firsthand and experienced this. The guy who hit me was very underinsured. And frankly, $25,000 is a hiccup in medical bills today with everything as expensive as it is, and even the cost of vehicles have gone so much. You know, I certainly don't carry the minimums, that's for sure. And anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee and to share this experience that I've had firsthand and how it will detrimentally affect the veteran community of Arkansas. Mr. Finnigan, I don't see any questions. If there are any questions, are you willing to take them? Absolutely. Members, any questions of this witness? Seeing no questions. Thank you, Mr. Finnigan, for your time and for appearing before, uh, the committee. Thank you and thank you again, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity to talk to you. And no, this isn't an act. It really hurts up and down. Members, we have one other person who has signed up to speak against the bill, uh, Mr. Lin, Allen. Lane, excuse me. If you come to the table, identify yourself and you're recognized to make your statement. Hi, I'm Alan Lane. I'm I'm an attorney in Fayetteville, Arkansas. I've talked to many of you about this bill, and I appreciate your time and your conversation about the bill. I'm here against the bill as Madam Chair said, and really for for a number of reasons, my law firm represents injured people all around the state of Arkansas, I think a couple of things that I appreciate really Mr. Allen in the conversation with with Representative Eubanks. I feel like at least the the conversation down here in the in the statements and sort of the comments they made were were on par, very fair and balanced, I think what I wanted to start with and talking about this issue is just sort of put to bed, just put this to bed in your mind. There is nothing that's going to happen if you pass this bill. That you can say for sure to anyone in your district you are going to be better off. Your rates are going to be lower. The economy is going to be better a job has been created. A new business is coming to our state. There is nothing to suggest that's going to happen and in every state that has passed something similar. In fact, we know that has not changed or not happened. Now, certainly, as was said, there are lots of components, lots of factors to this, and that will continue to be the case no matter what happens here today, so I appreciate that conversation and let's just start with that. So it really comes down to, as was discussed, sort of a policy issue. Is this the policy, the new policy for Arkansas is, do we think this puts people in our state in a better position than there are currently. Do we think this is more fair for those people or businesses who find themselves on the other side of a lawsuit because of some unfortunate unsafe act that may have occurred, not that they intended to hurt anyone. But they did. But they did. Do we think those people in Arkansas that are on that side of the table, that side of the courtroom, that side of the claim. Do we believe those people in our district are raising their hand and asking this body to give them a pass, to give them a break, to somehow not make them accountable in full for the damage and harm they've caused. I don't think so. I don't think so. All right? And if that's what they're asking for, then we should be questioning that and having a conversation with them more deeply and more detailed about where they're coming from or why they think they should be entitled to that. OK. The other thing I want to bring up a little bit is that of course this is always talked about in the context of a car wreck. All right, this is always talked about in the terms of a car wreck, but please understand, if you pass this bill, It affects every single civil claim that's made. Understand who that is. Understand that that's a, you know, people that are victims of child sexual abuse. Those perpetrators and their insurance corporations are going to get a break. Intended or not, All right, Victims of sex trafficking we're seeing in the news a lot. A lot of that is happening in our state and our state is doing great things to try to combat it and fix it and fight it and stamp it out, but those people that are involved in those claims, right, are going to get a break and their insurance corporations are going to get a break. All right. That's not What Arkansas is about that isn't the policy we should be seeking to implement. It's just not. The system in Arkansas and civil justice claims is not broken. The state's never been better in our economic activity and our economic growth. We've heard from everybody when this session started that the state of the state is good. The state of the state is strong. The state of the state is good and the state of the state is strong because we have policies in place to protect people. Fairly So it comes down to this question of there's some belief that there's some windfall, some, some extra. That's going into the pocket of the injured party, right? And so that, and so that's the question. If you believe that, you believe that. OK. If you believe that, I'd ask for that you sort of recheck those sources where you're getting that information, but if you believe that, that's fine, believe that. The policy of this state has been to this point up until this day, the policy of this state is that windfall more fairly belongs into the pocket of the injured party, then the pocket of the person who caused that harm or injury. That is the policy of the state. That is the policy you will be changing if you choose to change it. I submit to you that there's not one person in your district that's asking you to change this policy. There's not one person in your district that would benefit if you change this policy, right? We know this is not an issue that's brought forward to any of you by your, you know, individual constituents in your district. This is a special interest bill. That's OK. We understand that. We have an industry association that a lot of you have heard from over the last several days. We get that no problem with that. I don't have any problem with the business or a business owner or a corporation or any other type of of of resident in Arkansas looking to try to improve their lot and improve their life. But not at the not at the, you know, not at the expense. of someone they've harmed. Right? That, that isn't how we should do business in Arkansas, and that shouldn't be the policy of Arkansas. That's all the comments I have you on, or Madam Chair, thank you. I see no questions, but if there are questions, are you willing to take them? Sure, absolutely. Members, any questions of this witness. Seeing the questions. Thank you, Mr. Lane, for your time. Thank you, ma'am for the committee, committee, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against Representative Eubanks should recognized go to the end of the table and close for your bill. Thank Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, This is not A topic that I was or an issue or a bill that I was asked to file and to run by any organization, by any individual by any company, whether an insurance company or any association. I stated earlier that this was a this was an issue that I, I, I felt strongly about for a number of years even prior to being elected. And I have to disagree with uh My friend Alan, because they actually there have been constituents in my district that have talked about tort reform and the importance of it. And for full disclosure, his mother lives in my district and He was in attendance at my first fundraiser at her home, so I've known Alan for a number of years. And I appreciate the comments he made. I appreciate the comments of all the testimony that I've heard here today. You know, over half the states or close to half the states in the country have adopted something similar to this. And The world that men. You know, uh, there's a number of organizations that are supporting this bill, the Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel. Arkansas Farm Bureau, Arkansas Health Care Association, Arkansas Hospital Association, Arkansas Medical Society, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, Arkansas Trucking Association, National Federation of Independent Business and the Poultry Federation. I mean, I think uh Repres Speaker Shepherd brought this up, that, you know, this is really not about the the medical damages here. It, it goes far beyond that because and then we heard the discussion about the multiplier effect and everything, and that's not in rule or statute anywhere that requires that to be taken into consideration. I firmly believe that any injured party needs to recover what they deserve. I have, you know, I have no personal interest, business, other investment, otherwise that where I would benefit because of whether this bill passes or it doesn't. I do believe that it does affect the overall economy of our citizens. And finally, I'm I'm just going to say that the The Arkansas jury instructions on damages for medical bills provides for the reasonable expense of any necessary medical care, treatment and services received, and I contend what is more reasonable than what was accepted as full and final payment. And I moved to pass. Members representative Eubanks has closed for his bill and has made a motion to do pass. We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed say no. The eyes have it, the motion carries. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. With that, members, our next meeting will be Thursday. Right now we haven't set at 10 o'clock. I remind you that the um Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court is scheduled to be here and I have identified the three bills watch for your text messages. Thank you for your attentiveness this morning with that, we are adjourned. the It's always calm when you're in the house.