Latest news with #HouseBill4806
Time Business News
23-05-2025
- Health
- Time Business News
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
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas House bill intends to make it harder for victims with major injuries to receive compensation
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways The Brief A proposed Texas law would make it more challenging for victims with catastrophic injuries to receive damages related to things like pain and suffering, and mental anguish. The bill is proposed by Representative Greg Bonnen, a Republican from Galveston. There was emotional testimony in the state capital today as victim after victim told lawmakers about how pain and suffering is real, and the state should not add to the difficulty of getting that form of compensation. AUSTIN, Texas - A proposed Texas law would make it more challenging for victims with catastrophic injuries to receive damages related to things like pain and suffering, and mental anguish. The bill is proposed by Representative Greg Bonnen, a Republican from Galveston. Texans for lawsuit reform testified in favor of the bill, but there was emotional testimony in the state capital today as victim after victim told lawmakers about how pain and suffering is real, and the state should not add to the difficulty of getting that form of compensation. What they're saying In favor of HB 4806 Bonnen, who is also a doctor, argues the bill is a necessary reform. "The bill has changed substantially since first introduced," said Bonnen. "It will allow providers to be able to take care of people who have been injured and not dragged into the litigation process." The other side Dick Trabulsi is co-founder and Chairman of Texans for Lawsuit Reform and does not support the fact that loved ones would be unable to receive full compensation. "It would make no sense for the entire business community, and it is the entire business community that supports it, to propose legislation where any of our loved ones would not be able to access the courts, and receive full compensation," said Trabulsi. Roberta Gallaread's late husband Roberta Gallaread told state lawmakers that House Bill 4806 would devastate people who face disfiguring injuries like her husband did in 2022. Their apartment caught fire after property managers ignored reports of gas leaks. Gallaread was able to reach a settlement in her case because the company knew a jury would likely award damages for pain and suffering and mental anguish. But under the proposed bill it would become more challenging for attorneys to make a case for non-economic damage. "Reports of gas leaks were ignored. That negligence led to the devastating fire that left Alonzo's body 53% burned. He spent 106 days in Parkland Hospital's burn unit. This fire changed his life forever," said Gallaread. "He lived with emotional scars but, unfortunately, Alonzo passed away Feb 20, 2025." Brianna Blake's emotional testimony in sign language Brianna Blake from Midland gave an emotional testimony using sign language. Blake's mother, Jennifer Blake, translated that she was in a crash with an 18-wheeler when she was 12 years old in 2013. "Doctors told my mom I would always be vegetative and never wake up. I woke up," said Brianna Blake. Jennifer Blake asked what many who oppose the bill were wondering. "I hear them complain about the rising costs of insurance, but if they did not put profit above safety, leading to these injuries and deaths, wouldn't their costs be lower?" Jessica Sprague's daughter Jessica Sprague from Houston testified that her two-year-old son, Colton, was killed at 16 months old when a truck driver with drugs in his system ran a stop sign and T-boned their car. "Colton passed at 2:02 PM. When we said goodbye, we couldn't hold him because an autopsy had to be performed." Her husband, Jason Sprague, spoke about the tragic circumstances of their son. "If the company that killed Colton wanted lower insurance premiums they should not have hired a drug user to drive their truck." What's next Ware Wendell with Texas Watch says the committee made the unusual move to cut off testimony from victims. The committee will reconvene to hear invited testimony this evening. The Source Information in this article was provided by the 89th Texas Legislature.
Associated Press
25-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
The Myth of Nuclear Verdicts: Why Senate Bill 30 Is an Unnecessary Response to Judicial Self-Regulation in Texas
Benson Varghese shares insights into why SB30 benefits corporate interests rather than ordinary citizens FORT WORTH, TX, April 24, 2025 (EZ Newswire) -- Benson Varghese, founder and managing partner of Varghese Summersett, a Texas law firm that represents clients in significant wrongful death and injury cases, examines the proposed Senate Bill 30 (SB30) in Texas, which purports to address the issue of 'nuclear verdicts' in civil litigation. Through analysis of Texas Supreme Court precedents and empirical evidence from previous tort reform efforts, this paper argues that the existing judicial framework already provides sufficient safeguards against excessive verdicts, making legislative intervention unnecessary and potentially harmful to injured plaintiffs. The article concludes that SB30 primarily benefits corporate interests rather than ordinary citizens and recommends against its passage. Introduction In the current Texas legislative session, Senate Bill 30 (SB30) and its companion House Bill 4806 (HB4806) have been presented as necessary reforms to rein in 'nuclear verdicts' and reduce costs for Texas businesses and consumers. A nuclear verdict is generally defined as an award that exceeds $10 million, particularly when it includes substantial non-economic or punitive damages ( Behrens & Silverman, 2017 ). Proponents argue these bills are essential to protect Texas from excessive litigation costs, employing rhetoric similar to that used to justify medical malpractice reforms passed in 2003 ( Silver et al., 2008 ). However, such legislation is unnecessary given the Texas judiciary's demonstrated willingness and ability to address excessive verdicts through established legal principles and appellate review. Moreover, based on evidence from previous tort reform efforts, there is reason to doubt that SB30 could deliver its promised consumer benefits ( Black et al., 2005; Paik et al., 2012 ). The Texas Supreme Court's Effective Framework for Reviewing Verdicts While large verdicts may capture headlines, the empirical reality is that such verdicts rarely survive appellate review intact when they are deemed excessive or inadequately supported by evidence ( Hyman et al., 2007 ). The Texas Supreme Court has systematically developed a robust framework for reviewing damage awards that effectively addresses concerns about excessive verdicts without requiring legislative intervention. Well before the landmark Gregory v. Chohan decision, the Texas Supreme Court established clear precedents requiring that damages—both economic and noneconomic—must be grounded in evidence rather than speculation or arbitrary figures. In Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. 1996), the Court held that plaintiffs must present evidence not only of the existence of compensable mental anguish but also evidence to justify the amount awarded. This principle has been consistently reinforced in subsequent cases such as Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) and Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2018). The Texas Supreme Court further strengthened these principles in its landmark decision in Gregory v. Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2023). The Court explicitly rejected the notion that damages awards should be upheld merely because they do not 'shock the conscience,' instead requiring a rational connection between the evidence presented and the amount awarded. The Court specifically condemned the use of 'unsubstantiated anchors,' such as comparing the value of human life to the price of fighter jets or famous paintings, and prohibited arguments encouraging juries to 'pick a number' without a logical basis tied to the facts of the case. As Justice Devine noted in his concurring opinion in Chohan, 'the jury system holds its own cure' for excessive verdicts through the existing appellate review process. This judicial framework provides a nuanced, case-by-case approach to evaluating damages that rigid statutory caps or formulas cannot match. The Unfulfilled Promises of Previous Tort Reform Proponents of SB30 claim it will reduce costs for Texas consumers, echoing arguments made for medical malpractice reforms enacted in 2003. However, empirical research demonstrates that those earlier reforms failed to deliver their promised benefits. A comprehensive study by Silver et al. (2008) found that despite significant reductions in medical malpractice claims and payouts after the 2003 reforms, healthcare costs in Texas continued to rise at rates equal to or higher than the national average. The researchers concluded there was 'no evidence that Texas spending levels or growth in spending declined relative to other states' following tort reform ( Silver et al., 2008, p. 1867). Similarly, Paik et al. (2012) found that Texas's healthcare spending actually increased faster than the national average in the years following tort reform. Their research showed Medicare spending in Texas rose 1-2% faster than in comparable states without similar reforms, directly contradicting claims that limiting litigation would lower healthcare costs. Black et al. (2005) found that while medical malpractice insurers benefited substantially from the 2003 reforms through reduced claims and payouts, these savings were not passed on to consumers through lower healthcare costs or insurance premiums. This history of unfulfilled promises provides substantial reason to be skeptical of similar claims being made about SB30. How SB30 Would Restrict Access to Justice SB30 would create several significant barriers to justice for injured Texans that go well beyond addressing truly excessive verdicts. Restricting Evidence of Medical Expenses The bill would severely limit what evidence can be presented regarding medical expenses. Currently, injured plaintiffs can present evidence of the full amount billed for their medical care. Under SB30, they would be limited to presenting evidence of the amount actually paid (often reduced rates negotiated by insurance companies) or amounts capped at 300% of Medicare rates—which are typically far below market rates for many services ( Hyman & Silver, 2006 ). This change fails to account for the reality that many Texans receive care under 'letters of protection,' where medical providers agree to treat patients and wait for payment until their case resolves—arrangements particularly important for Texas's large uninsured population ( Hyman et al., 2015 ). Intrusive Disclosure Requirements SB30 would require plaintiffs to disclose detailed information about medical treatment and referrals, including whether their attorney referred them to a healthcare provider. These provisions raise significant privacy concerns and could create barriers to obtaining necessary medical care after an injury ( Baker, 2005 ). Narrowing Definitions of Compensable Harm The bill introduces restrictive definitions of 'mental or emotional pain or anguish' and 'physical pain and suffering,' setting high thresholds that would make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to receive compensation for genuine harms. For example, the definition requires that mental anguish be 'debilitating' and cause 'substantial disruption in a person's daily routine"—a standard significantly more stringent than current Texas law ( Finley, 2004 ). The Myth of the Nuclear Verdict Crisis While proponents of SB30 point to high-profile, large verdicts as evidence of a crisis requiring legislative intervention, empirical research demonstrates that such verdicts are statistical outliers that rarely survive appellate review ( Vidmar & Wolfe, 2009 ). According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the median awards in personal injury trials have remained relatively stable over time when adjusted for inflation, and only a tiny fraction of cases result in what might be termed 'nuclear verdicts' ( Cohen & Smith, 2004 ). Moreover, as demonstrated in the previous section, the Texas Supreme Court has already established effective mechanisms for reviewing and, when appropriate, reducing excessive verdicts. The focus on these exceptional cases diverts attention from the thousands of legitimate claims that would be harmed by the proposed changes. For every headline-grabbing verdict, numerous injured Texans struggle to obtain even modest compensation for genuine harms caused by corporate negligence (Baker, 2005). Who Benefits from SB30? The evidence from previous tort reform efforts suggests that SB30 would primarily benefit corporate defendants and their insurers, not ordinary Texas consumers (Black et al., 2005). By making it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to recover fair compensation, SB30 would effectively shift costs from negligent corporations to injured individuals and, ultimately, to taxpayers through increased reliance on public assistance programs (Finley, 2004). The 2003 medical malpractice reforms provide a cautionary tale. While those reforms succeeded in dramatically reducing medical malpractice claims and payouts to injured patients, the promised benefits to consumers in the form of lower healthcare costs and insurance premiums never materialized (Silver et al., 2008). Instead, the primary beneficiaries were insurance companies, which saw substantial increases in profitability without passing those savings on to consumers (Black et al., 2005). Conclusion The Texas civil justice system already possesses robust mechanisms for addressing excessive verdicts through the appellate review process. The Texas Supreme Court has consistently demonstrated its willingness and ability to reduce or reverse verdicts that are not supported by evidence or that are deemed excessive. SB30 represents an unnecessary and potentially harmful legislative intervention that would primarily benefit corporate defendants and their insurers at the expense of injured Texans seeking fair compensation. Rather than protecting consumers, the bill would shield negligent actors from accountability and shift costs to individuals and taxpayers. Based on the evidence from previous tort reform efforts and the Texas Supreme Court's established framework for reviewing damages awards, this article concludes that SB30 is an unnecessary solution to a largely fictional problem. As Justice Devine aptly noted in Chohan, 'the jury system holds its own cure' for truly excessive verdicts. Rather than enacting SB30, Texas lawmakers should trust in the judiciary's demonstrated ability to address excessive verdicts through existing legal principles and appellate review. Benson Varghese is the founder and managing partner of Varghese Summersett, a Texas law firm that represents clients in significant wrongful death and injury cases. He is also the creator of Lawft, a law practice management platform built for growth, and the author of Tapped In, a soon-to-be-released book on law firm growth. He can be reached at[email protected]. References About Varghese Summersett Varghese Summersett is a premier personal injury, criminal defense, and family law practice dedicated to helping people through life's greatest challenges. The firm's roster is comprised of experienced, award-winning attorneys committed to providing exceptional legal services. Varghese Summersett has been named a fastest-growing law firm by Inc. 5000. It has also been named a 'Best Law Firm,' a 'DFW Favorite,' a 'Best Place to Work' and a 'Best Places for Working Parents,' among numerous other accolades. The firm has locations in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston, allowing clients throughout Texas to access top-tier legal representation. For more information, visit Media Contact Melody Lanier [email protected] ### SOURCE: Varghese Summersett Copyright 2025 EZ Newswire
Reuters
24-04-2025
- Business
- Reuters
The Myth of Nuclear Verdicts: Why Senate Bill 30 Is an Unnecessary Response to Judicial Self-Regulation in Texas
FORT WORTH, TX, April 24, 2025 (EZ Newswire) -- Benson Varghese, founder and managing partner of Varghese Summersett, a Texas law firm that represents clients in significant wrongful death and injury cases, examines the proposed Senate Bill 30 (SB30) in Texas, which purports to address the issue of "nuclear verdicts" in civil litigation. Through analysis of Texas Supreme Court precedents and empirical evidence from previous tort reform efforts, this paper argues that the existing judicial framework already provides sufficient safeguards against excessive verdicts, making legislative intervention unnecessary and potentially harmful to injured plaintiffs. The article concludes that SB30 primarily benefits corporate interests rather than ordinary citizens and recommends against its passage. Introduction In the current Texas legislative session, Senate Bill 30 (SB30) and its companion House Bill 4806 (HB4806) have been presented as necessary reforms to rein in "nuclear verdicts" and reduce costs for Texas businesses and consumers. A nuclear verdict is generally defined as an award that exceeds $10 million, particularly when it includes substantial non-economic or punitive damages (Behrens & Silverman, 2017). Proponents argue these bills are essential to protect Texas from excessive litigation costs, employing rhetoric similar to that used to justify medical malpractice reforms passed in 2003 (Silver et al., 2008). However, such legislation is unnecessary given the Texas judiciary's demonstrated willingness and ability to address excessive verdicts through established legal principles and appellate review. Moreover, based on evidence from previous tort reform efforts, there is reason to doubt that SB30 could deliver its promised consumer benefits (Black et al., 2005; Paik et al., 2012). The Texas Supreme Court's Effective Framework for Reviewing Verdicts While large verdicts may capture headlines, the empirical reality is that such verdicts rarely survive appellate review intact when they are deemed excessive or inadequately supported by evidence (Hyman et al., 2007). The Texas Supreme Court has systematically developed a robust framework for reviewing damage awards that effectively addresses concerns about excessive verdicts without requiring legislative intervention. Well before the landmark Gregory v. Chohan decision, the Texas Supreme Court established clear precedents requiring that damages—both economic and noneconomic—must be grounded in evidence rather than speculation or arbitrary figures. In Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. 1996), the Court held that plaintiffs must present evidence not only of the existence of compensable mental anguish but also evidence to justify the amount awarded. This principle has been consistently reinforced in subsequent cases such as Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) and Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2018). The Texas Supreme Court further strengthened these principles in its landmark decision in Gregory v. Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2023). The Court explicitly rejected the notion that damages awards should be upheld merely because they do not "shock the conscience," instead requiring a rational connection between the evidence presented and the amount awarded. The Court specifically condemned the use of "unsubstantiated anchors," such as comparing the value of human life to the price of fighter jets or famous paintings, and prohibited arguments encouraging juries to "pick a number" without a logical basis tied to the facts of the case. As Justice Devine noted in his concurring opinion in Chohan, "the jury system holds its own cure" for excessive verdicts through the existing appellate review process. This judicial framework provides a nuanced, case-by-case approach to evaluating damages that rigid statutory caps or formulas cannot match. The Unfulfilled Promises of Previous Tort Reform Proponents of SB30 claim it will reduce costs for Texas consumers, echoing arguments made for medical malpractice reforms enacted in 2003. However, empirical research demonstrates that those earlier reforms failed to deliver their promised benefits. A comprehensive study by Silver et al. (2008) found that despite significant reductions in medical malpractice claims and payouts after the 2003 reforms, healthcare costs in Texas continued to rise at rates equal to or higher than the national average. The researchers concluded there was "no evidence that Texas spending levels or growth in spending declined relative to other states" following tort reform (Silver et al., 2008, p. 1867). Similarly, Paik et al. (2012) found that Texas's healthcare spending actually increased faster than the national average in the years following tort reform. Their research showed Medicare spending in Texas rose 1-2% faster than in comparable states without similar reforms, directly contradicting claims that limiting litigation would lower healthcare costs. Black et al. (2005) found that while medical malpractice insurers benefited substantially from the 2003 reforms through reduced claims and payouts, these savings were not passed on to consumers through lower healthcare costs or insurance premiums. This history of unfulfilled promises provides substantial reason to be skeptical of similar claims being made about SB30. How SB30 Would Restrict Access to Justice SB30 would create several significant barriers to justice for injured Texans that go well beyond addressing truly excessive verdicts. Restricting Evidence of Medical Expenses The bill would severely limit what evidence can be presented regarding medical expenses. Currently, injured plaintiffs can present evidence of the full amount billed for their medical care. Under SB30, they would be limited to presenting evidence of the amount actually paid (often reduced rates negotiated by insurance companies) or amounts capped at 300% of Medicare rates—which are typically far below market rates for many services (Hyman & Silver, 2006). This change fails to account for the reality that many Texans receive care under "letters of protection," where medical providers agree to treat patients and wait for payment until their case resolves—arrangements particularly important for Texas's large uninsured population (Hyman et al., 2015). Intrusive Disclosure Requirements SB30 would require plaintiffs to disclose detailed information about medical treatment and referrals, including whether their attorney referred them to a healthcare provider. These provisions raise significant privacy concerns and could create barriers to obtaining necessary medical care after an injury (Baker, 2005). Narrowing Definitions of Compensable Harm The bill introduces restrictive definitions of "mental or emotional pain or anguish" and "physical pain and suffering," setting high thresholds that would make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to receive compensation for genuine harms. For example, the definition requires that mental anguish be "debilitating" and cause "substantial disruption in a person's daily routine"—a standard significantly more stringent than current Texas law (Finley, 2004). The Myth of the Nuclear Verdict Crisis While proponents of SB30 point to high-profile, large verdicts as evidence of a crisis requiring legislative intervention, empirical research demonstrates that such verdicts are statistical outliers that rarely survive appellate review (Vidmar & Wolfe, 2009). According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the median awards in personal injury trials have remained relatively stable over time when adjusted for inflation, and only a tiny fraction of cases result in what might be termed "nuclear verdicts" (Cohen & Smith, 2004). Moreover, as demonstrated in the previous section, the Texas Supreme Court has already established effective mechanisms for reviewing and, when appropriate, reducing excessive verdicts. The focus on these exceptional cases diverts attention from the thousands of legitimate claims that would be harmed by the proposed changes. For every headline-grabbing verdict, numerous injured Texans struggle to obtain even modest compensation for genuine harms caused by corporate negligence (Baker, 2005). Who Benefits from SB30? The evidence from previous tort reform efforts suggests that SB30 would primarily benefit corporate defendants and their insurers, not ordinary Texas consumers (Black et al., 2005). By making it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to recover fair compensation, SB30 would effectively shift costs from negligent corporations to injured individuals and, ultimately, to taxpayers through increased reliance on public assistance programs (Finley, 2004). The 2003 medical malpractice reforms provide a cautionary tale. While those reforms succeeded in dramatically reducing medical malpractice claims and payouts to injured patients, the promised benefits to consumers in the form of lower healthcare costs and insurance premiums never materialized (Silver et al., 2008). Instead, the primary beneficiaries were insurance companies, which saw substantial increases in profitability without passing those savings on to consumers (Black et al., 2005). Conclusion The Texas civil justice system already possesses robust mechanisms for addressing excessive verdicts through the appellate review process. The Texas Supreme Court has consistently demonstrated its willingness and ability to reduce or reverse verdicts that are not supported by evidence or that are deemed excessive. SB30 represents an unnecessary and potentially harmful legislative intervention that would primarily benefit corporate defendants and their insurers at the expense of injured Texans seeking fair compensation. Rather than protecting consumers, the bill would shield negligent actors from accountability and shift costs to individuals and taxpayers. Based on the evidence from previous tort reform efforts and the Texas Supreme Court's established framework for reviewing damages awards, this article concludes that SB30 is an unnecessary solution to a largely fictional problem. As Justice Devine aptly noted in Chohan, "the jury system holds its own cure" for truly excessive verdicts. Rather than enacting SB30, Texas lawmakers should trust in the judiciary's demonstrated ability to address excessive verdicts through existing legal principles and appellate review. Benson Varghese is the founder and managing partner of Varghese Summersett, a Texas law firm that represents clients in significant wrongful death and injury cases. He is also the creator of Lawft, a law practice management platform built for growth, and the author of Tapped In, a soon-to-be-released book on law firm growth. He can be reached at benson@ References Baker, T. (2005). The medical malpractice myth. University of Chicago Press. Behrens, M. A., & Silverman, C. (2017). Nuclear verdicts: Trends, causes, and solutions. IADC Defense Counsel Journal, 84(3), 291-305. Black, B., Silver, C., Hyman, D. A., & Sage, W. M. (2005). Stability, not crisis: Medical malpractice claim outcomes in Texas, 1988-2002. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(2), 207-259. Cohen, T. H., & Smith, S. K. (2004). Civil trial cases and verdicts in large counties, 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 202803. Finley, L. M. (2004). The hidden victims of tort reform: Women, children, and the elderly. Emory Law Journal, 53, 1263-1314. Gregory v. Chohan, 615 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. 2020). Hyman, D. A., & Silver, C. (2006). Medical malpractice litigation and tort reform: It's the incentives, stupid. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59(4), 1085-1136. Hyman, D. A., Black, B., Silver, C., & Sage, W. M. (2007). Do defendants pay what juries award? Post-verdict haircuts in Texas medical malpractice cases, 1988-2003. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(1), 3-68. Hyman, D. A., Silver, C., Black, B., & Paik, M. (2015). Does tort reform affect physician supply? Evidence from Texas. International Review of Law and Economics, 42, 203-218. Paik, M., Black, B., Hyman, D. A., Sage, W. M., & Silver, C. (2012). Will tort reform bend the cost curve? Evidence from Texas. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(2), 173-216. Silver, C., Hyman, D. A., Black, B., & Paik, M. (2008). Does tort reform affect physician supply? Evidence from Texas. Health Affairs, 27(3), 1865-1873. Vidmar, N., & Wolfe, M. W. (2009). Punitive damages. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 179-199. About Varghese Summersett Varghese Summersett is a premier personal injury, criminal defense, and family law practice dedicated to helping people through life's greatest challenges. The firm's roster is comprised of experienced, award-winning attorneys committed to providing exceptional legal services. Varghese Summersett has been named a fastest-growing law firm by Inc. 5000. It has also been named a "Best Law Firm," a "DFW Favorite," a "Best Place to Work" and a "Best Places for Working Parents," among numerous other accolades. The firm has locations in Fort Worth, Dallas, Southlake, and Houston, allowing clients throughout Texas to access top-tier legal representation. For more information, visit Media Contact Melody Lanier melody@ ### SOURCE: Varghese Summersett See release on EZ Newswire
