Rep. Jon Eubanks, R-Paris, presents a tort reform bill to the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 28, 2025 in the Arkansas Capitol. (Mary Hennigan/Arkansas Advocate)
A bill that would decrease the amount plaintiffs could recover in personal injury cases passed in an Arkansas legislative committee Tuesday despite legislators’ concerns and public comments against it.
House Bill 1204, sponsored by Rep. Jon Eubanks, R-Paris, would add five lines to existing Arkansas code concerning the recovery of damages.
“Recovery of damages under subsection (a) of this section for past 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,” the proposed addition reads in its entirety.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee passed the bill on a voice vote, though multiple members could be heard in dissent.
Eubanks filed the bill last week, and during his introduction Tuesday he said it had quickly garnered a lot of attention and controversy. Eubanks said his bill was similar to one that failed in the 94th General Assembly sponsored by Rep. Marcus Richmond, R-Harvey.
The only difference between the two proposals is that Eubanks’ includes the word “past” in three instances. Richmond’s bill in 2023 died in the House Judiciary Committee at sine die adjournment.
“I certainly don’t want to deprive an injured party of any just recovery of damages, I really don’t,” Eubanks said. “But for this particular issue 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. Currently, Arkansas courts allow the plaintiff to recover the billed amount, even though something less was accepted. That honestly doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Republican Reps. Matthew Shepherd of El Dorado and Jimmy Gazaway of Paragould led much of the committee’s questioning on Tuesday, though Reps. Ashley Hudson and Andrew Collins, both Little Rock Democrats, shared concerns as well.
At the core of their concerns, lawmakers wanted Eubanks to explain how the bill would improve the lives of the average Arkansan who pays their monthly health insurance premiums.
Citing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Eubanks said Arkansas’ average tort burden cost per household is $2,942. This figure, Eubanks said, is a “substantial amount” that the proposed policy would help alleviate.
But Gazaway was unsatisfied with Eubanks’ macro-level assessment, and when he asked again, Eubanks said the proposal would “bring reality to what damages are, and it will impact the economy … the average Arkansans’ employer, their small business, their insurance premiums.”
Eubanks presented his bill alongside Justin Allen, an attorney with Wright Lindsey Jennings in Little Rock. Allen answered the bulk of lawmakers’ questions, and ultimately agreed plaintiffs would receive less in cases where medical bills are discounted or negotiated.
“The argument here is that the plaintiff should be recovering less because those amounts don’t even exist as damages, but I would acknowledge it would decrease that recovery,” Allen said.
Allen partially agreed with Hudson that the legislation would create a class system of different plaintiffs based on their insurance status, and disagreed with Gazaway that the bill would only benefit defendants.
Allen said the bill would affect both parties, though the defendant would only have to pay what was paid and accepted, “which is less than what is being paid under current law.”
HB1204 was heard under a special order of business, which means committee members did not discuss any other bills. The Capitol committee room was standing room only.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Public Comment
No one from the public spoke in favor of HB1204, but three people came to speak against it. Two attorneys and one disabled veteran said the bill would have an overwhelmingly negative effect on Arkansans.
Justin Minton, a Saline County attorney and former insurance adjuster, said defendants are already not required to pay for unnecessary treatment.
“In reality, the bill does two things,” Minton said. “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 two — and probably even worse — is it rewards bad behavior by allowing bad actors, for example a drunk driver, to take credit for our veteran service or our single moms’ health insurance premiums.”
Minton said if passed, the bill would also benefit insurance companies by lowering their payouts at the expense of those who pay their premiums.
Stephen Finnegan, a disabled veteran who is a client of Minton’s, said he has first-hand experience with the issue at hand after a recent car accident on Interstate 430.
He told the committee that the existing system works well, and the proposed bill will “detrimentally affect the veteran community of Arkansas.”
Fayetteville attorney Alan Lane was the last to speak against the bill Tuesday, and he said there’s nothing to suggest that Arkansans will benefit from the proposed policy.
Lane said that while the conversation Tuesday centered around people injured in car accidents, plantiffs in every civil claim, including those in child sexual abuse and sex trafficking cases, would also be affected.
“There’s not one person in your district that would benefit if you change this policy,” Lane said. “We know this is not an issue that’s brought forward to any of you by your individual constituents in your district. This is a special interest bill.”
In closing for his bill, Eubanks pushed back on Lane’s comments and said he filed the bill independent of any outside influence. He also said he’s spoken with constituents of his who are interested in tort reform.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.