Texas Tort Reform & Your Rights: What Recent Legislative Changes Mean for Injury Victims
Texas has a long and complex history with tort reform, legislation aimed at limiting the ability of individuals to file lawsuits and the amount of damages they can recover. While proponents argue such reforms curb frivolous lawsuits and control insurance costs, opponents contend they often strip away crucial rights from injured Texans, making it harder for victims to receive full and fair compensation. For anyone dealing with the aftermath of an accident, understanding these legal shifts is paramount.
Recent legislative discussions and changes, particularly around measures like House Bill 4806 (HB 4806) and Senate Bill 30 (SB 30) from the 89th Legislative Session, highlight an ongoing push to modify the landscape of personal injury claims. These bills, and the broader trend they represent, significantly affect how medical expenses are recovered, the caps on non-economic damages, and the process of proving claims in Texas.
Key Areas Impacted by Recent Tort Reform Measures Medical Expense Recovery:One of the most contentious areas targeted by recent tort reform efforts, including HB 4806 and SB 30, is how medical expenses are calculated and recovered in personal injury lawsuits.5 Traditionally, injured parties could seek the 'reasonable and necessary' cost of medical care they received. However, these proposed changes aim to limit recovery to: Amounts Actually Paid: Instead of the total amount billed by healthcare providers, plaintiffs might only be able to recover what was actually paid by their health insurance or other third-party payers. This can be significantly less than the billed amount, leaving uninsured victims or those with high deductibles/co-pays in a precarious position. Market-Based Rates: Some proposals tie recovery to a 'median reimbursement' rate from a state database or a multiple of Medicare rates (e.g., 150% or 300%). This could prevent injured individuals from recovering the full cost of their care, especially if they received treatment from providers who don't accept insurance or whose rates exceed these arbitrary caps. Challenges to Affidavits: Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 18.001 historically allowed medical providers to submit affidavits to prove the reasonableness and necessity of medical bills, streamlining the process. Recent proposals, like those in SB 30, would change this, allowing defendants to challenge these claims more easily with a simple 'notice of intent to controvert' rather than a counter-affidavit signed by a qualified expert. This shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to bring the treating provider to court for live testimony, adding significant cost and complexity. Non-Economic Damages:Non-economic damages compensate for subjective losses like pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life.7 While Texas already has caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases (generally $250,000 per defendant, up to $750,000 total), recent reform efforts aim to extend similar, and sometimes even more restrictive, caps to general personal injury and wrongful death cases. For example, HB 4806 proposed capping emotional damages in wrongful death cases at $1 million, with much lower caps for non-fatal bodily harm, and even eliminating entire categories of non-economic damages like physical impairment, disfigurement, and loss of companionship. These changes also seek to redefine 'mental or emotional pain or anguish' to require 'objectively verifiable' evidence or a 'grievous and debilitating' impact on daily life, making it harder to prove these deeply personal, yet very real, losses. Process of Proving Claims:Beyond specific damage categories, tort reform also seeks to alter procedural rules and evidentiary standards, making it more challenging for plaintiffs to build and prove their cases: Increased Burden of Proof: New definitions for damages and stricter evidentiary requirements can increase the burden of proof on injury victims, demanding more 'objectively verifiable' evidence for subjective losses. Restrictions on Expert Testimony: Proposals may introduce stricter rules on who can provide expert testimony regarding medical billing or causation, potentially limiting the plaintiff's ability to present a comprehensive case. Unanimous Jury Requirement for Non-Economic Damages: Some proposals, like elements of HB 4806, have even pushed for a unanimous jury agreement on non-economic damages, a significant departure from the current 10-out-of-12 juror agreement, making it substantially harder to secure compensation for pain and suffering.
Scott Callahan: An Advocate for Injured Texans
These legislative changes are not merely abstract legal concepts; they have tangible, often severe, consequences for individuals and families facing injuries. They shift the balance of power, often favoring large corporations and insurance companies at the expense of everyday Texans. This is precisely why having an attorney with an up-to-date understanding of Texas tort reform and a commitment to protecting injured Texans' rights is invaluable.
Scott Callahan & Associates actively monitors these legislative shifts. They understand how these laws might be interpreted and applied, and more importantly, how to strategically navigate them to achieve the best possible outcome for their clients. Whether it's meticulously documenting actual medical expenses to circumvent restrictive caps, building an undeniable case for non-economic damages with expert testimony, or effectively challenging defense tactics designed to exploit new procedural hurdles, a knowledgeable attorney can counteract these legislative disadvantages.
In a state where tort reform is an ongoing reality, having a legal advocate who is not only aware of these changes but also dedicated to fighting for justice despite them, is essential. Scott Callahan demonstrates leadership and knowledge within the legal community by consistently advocating for the rights of the injured and ensuring they receive the full and fair compensation they deserve, even in an increasingly challenging legal landscape.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Doritos and Mountain Dew could carry a new ‘not recommended for human consumption' warning under landmark Texas bill
Texas Governor Greg Abbott will decide whether to enact a bill requiring food manufacturers to add warning labels to products if they contain ingredients like dyes that have been banned or restricted by other countries. Major food conglomerates have opposed the bill, arguing it would add greater uncertainty for consumers in a time of economic unpredictability. A Texas bill on the brink of becoming law would crack down on major food manufacturers, requiring them to label products with warnings about ingredients 'not recommended for human consumption,' under the standards of countries other than the U.S. Senate Bill 25 would require U.S. food manufacturers to, beginning in 2027, clearly mark products sold in Texas with warning labels that the foods contain certain ingredients like bleached flour and synthetic food dyes that other countries have prohibited or required warnings for. The legislation would impact major food manufacturers like General Mills, whose brands Pillsbury Toaster Strudel contain bleached flour, as well as PepsiCo, the conglomerate behind Doritos and Mountain Dew, which contain dyes. The bill also outlines requirements for physical education and nutrition education in schools. The legislation reached the desk of Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Sunday. Supported by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the bill's enactment would notch a victory for Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement. The HHS secretary, as part of his MAHA efforts, has advocated for the banning of dyes, additives, and seed oils, arguing the ingredients increase the risk of cancer, hyperactivity in children, inflammatory bowel diseases, and allergic reactions. The bipartisan bill's enactment would also mark a departure from Texas's history of being a deep red state with a light touch with regulations. Texas is the second-largest state in the U.S. by population, with more than 31 million residents in 2024. A spokesperson for Abbott did not respond to Fortune's request for comment, but press secretary Andrew Mahaleris said in a statement to Bloomberg that, 'Governor Abbott will continue to work with the legislature to ensure Texans have access to healthy foods to care for themselves and their families and will thoughtfully review any legislation they send to his desk.' The HHS did not respond to Fortune's request for comment. In response to the bill, dozens of food manufacturers and distributors wrote a letter on May 19 to the Texas legislature asking it to remove the section of the legislation regarding warning labels. 'As currently written, the food labeling provision in this bill casts an incredibly wide net—triggering warning labels on everyday grocery items based on assertions that foreign governments have banned such items, rather than on standards established by Texas regulators or by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,' the letter said. The companies argued in the letter that Texas is outpacing national food labeling standards, and the enactment of the bill would 'destabilize local and regional economies' and limit access to foods in times of economic uncertainty. According to John Hewitt, senior vice president of state affairs at Consumer Brands Association, which represents several major U.S. food manufacturers, the food industry is committed to tools that increase ingredient transparency, but urged Abbott to veto the bill. 'The ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously studied following an objective science and risk-based evaluation process,' Hewitt told Fortune in a statement. 'The labeling requirements of SB 25 mandate inaccurate warning language, create legal risks for brands and drive consumer confusion and higher costs.' Consumer Brands Association did not respond to Fortune's inquiry about what component of the warning language was inaccurate. In the past following the enactment of food labeling legislation, food manufacturers have had to make sweeping changes to packaging to abide by the laws, according to Jura Liaukonyte, professor of marketing and applied economics at Cornell University's SC Johnson College of Business. Her research includes analyzing the ramifications of the passage of a Vermont law regarding labels for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Following the law's enactment, several large food companies changed their labeling at the national level, finding it inefficient to only update labels for products in one state. A national law around GMO labels passed about 30 days later, essentially rewarding the companies' strategy. Christina Roberto, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, told Fortune that in other cases, food manufacturers resist the legislation by taking legal action. 'The industry tends to not want to do something different, not want to do something that's going to incur costs,' Roberto said. 'And certainly this kind of legislation—where it's trying to warn consumers about the harms of aspects of the product—it's very unlikely that any manufacturer would be on board.' Liaukonyte noted another potential layer of uncertainty for food manufacturers is the bill's invocation of foreign food standards on U.S. products. Liaukonyte said the labeling mandate would highlight the disparities between food safety standards in the U.S. versus other parts of the world. 'There is a very different principle of how food and cosmetics safety is regulated in [the European Union] and in the U.S.,' she said. The EU uses the precautionary principle for food and cosmetics safety that requires rigorous testing, essentially that products are automatically deemed risky until proven safe. Meanwhile, the U.S. generally has a looser framework around safety. Companies can include additives to a product without explicit approval from the Food and Drug Administration, for example, if those additives are 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS), meaning qualified experts deem the product safe based on past research and use. Kennedy has advocated for greater scrutiny of the GRAS framework. New York is considering a law that would require the disclosure of evidence for products that are GRAS. Republican support for increased labeling of ingredients largely marks a departure of a decades-old trend of opposing food regulation. Liaukonyte speculated Kennedy's MAHA efforts have championed a naturalist movement that equates health decisions with individual rights. 'There is a little bit of reframing health as a conservative value,' she said. 'Reframing the labeling initiative: It's an issue of parental rights, personal responsibility, and it's sort of like making your own decisions conditional on being informed.' While Kennedy's claims around vaccines causing autism have been proven false and his recent 'MAHA report' misinterpreted and omitted citations, public health experts agree tighter regulation of labels, particularly to align with more stringent European standards, is good news for public health. For Roberto, her qualm with the legislation in question isn't that it isn't supported by scientific research or oversteps boundaries with food companies, but that it doesn't go far enough in setting standards to protect public health. She would like to see legislation advocating for warnings about salt, sugar, and saturated fats in certain foods, as well as taxing or banning them from schools. 'It actually is an exciting time,' Roberto said. 'But I think a lot of these policies could go further to support children's health by coupling it with other types of policies that we know work.' This story was originally featured on
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
Texans QB C.J. Stroud (shoulder) limited at OTAs
Texans quarterback C.J. Stroud did not throw at Houston's organized team activities Tuesday as he deals with minor shoulder tightness, according to multiple reports. Texans offensive coordinator Nick Caley recently said that he is not bothered by Stroud's lack of passing reps. "Yeah, he's locked in every step of the way. No concerns whatsoever," Caley told reporters Friday. "Everybody has a specific routine relative to their own routine, specific to whatever. Whether it's football, whether it's athletic training, et cetera, and he's doing a great job and he's out here and he's working." Stroud, 23, is entering his third season. He crafted an impressive debut season with a passer rating of 100.8 and 4,108 yards, both the third-best in NFL history for a rookie. He was the first Texans player to win Offensive Rookie of the Year honors. Last season, Stroud came back down to earth a bit. His yards per game dropped from 273.9 in 2023 to 219.2 in 2024, and his interception total jumped from five to 12. In two seasons with the Texans, Stroud is 19-13 with 43 touchdowns, 7,835 yards and a 93.7 passer rating. The No. 2 overall pick of the 2023 NFL Draft also has two wild-card playoff wins under his belt. --Field Level Media Field Level Media 2025 - All Rights Reserved
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Texans' DeMeco Ryans fires back at C.J. Stroud injury concerns
The post Texans' DeMeco Ryans fires back at C.J. Stroud injury concerns appeared first on ClutchPoints. While Houston Texans quarterback C.J. Stroud appears to have no concerns as he continues to not throw at OTAs, there is an additional update from head coach DeMeco Ryans. As Stroud leads the way for the Texans in the foreseeable future, Ryans would ease people's questions regarding the signal-caller and why he isn't throwing during OTAs. Advertisement Ryans would speak to the media in a press conference on Tuesday afternoon, where he echoed the same sentiments as new offensive coordinator Nick Caley, that there aren't any concerns. He would say 'it's just general soreness' with his shoulder as they are taking steps to not rush Stroud onto the field, according to Adam Schefter of ESPN. 'There's no concerns with C.J.,' said Texans HC DeMeco Ryans. 'It's just general soreness. We're taking extra precaution with him, but he'll be good to go. No concerns on my end there.' Last season, Stroud threw for 3,727 yards to go along with 20 touchdowns and 12 interceptions, which was down from his rookie year, when he recorded 4,108 yards with 23 touchdowns and five picks. While many could classify that as a classic sophomore slump, he looks for a big third season, but it remains to be seen how the shoulder soreness will heal. There are 'no concerns whatsoever' with Texans' C.J. Stroud Denny Medley-Imagn Images Despite the current issue with the shoulder, the Texans' star quarterback will work with a new offensive coordinator this season in Caley, as mentioned before. Before Ryans spoke about the shoulder, Caley would also be asked about the limited participation from Stroud, according to NBC Sports. Advertisement 'Yeah, he's locked in every step of the way. No concerns whatsoever,' Caley said during his press conference last Friday. 'I know DeMeco [Ryans] has already hit on this. Everybody has a specific routine relative to their own routine, specific to whatever.' At any rate, Houston is looking to further improve after finishing with a 10-7 record, which won them the NFC South, though they were eliminated by the Kansas City Chiefs in the divisional round. The Texans open the season against the Los Angeles Rams on Sunday, Sept. 7.
