Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 2446 based on its advancement of access to justice, reduction of procedural burdens in civil litigation, and reinforcement of limited government principles. The bill eliminates the requirement that a plaintiff submit an affidavit affirming the cost and necessity of medical services in civil actions when the total charges for those services are $50,000 or less. This change will apply to lawsuits filed on or after the effective date.
The bill analysis submitted by the committee underscores the underlying problem HB 2446 seeks to resolve: the cost of retaining expert witnesses to support affidavits in lower-value personal injury claims often acts as a barrier to settlement and justice. For claims under $50,000, the expense of securing expert testimony to meet the affidavit requirement can exceed the value of the dispute or undermine a plaintiff’s ability to negotiate a fair settlement. By removing this requirement for smaller cases, the bill seeks to streamline the litigation process, particularly for lower-income plaintiffs, without compromising the judge or jury’s authority to determine the reasonableness of charges or necessity of care.
Importantly, the bill does not diminish the court's gatekeeping function nor alter evidentiary standards; it merely eliminates a procedural step that disproportionately burdens lower-dollar cases. The bill creates no new criminal offenses, does not grant additional rulemaking authority, and has no fiscal impact on state or local governments. It simplifies and reduces litigation costs, which aligns with core principles of limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.
- Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty by making it easier for Texans to pursue justice in civil courts without burdensome procedural requirements. Under current law, individuals seeking to recover medical expenses in personal injury cases must file an affidavit attesting to the necessity and reasonableness of the services. This often requires retaining expensive expert witnesses. For lower-value claims (under $50,000), this can make litigation impractical or financially inaccessible. By eliminating this affidavit requirement for such cases, the bill removes an unnecessary legal hurdle, making civil courts more accessible and equitable—especially for low- and middle-income claimants.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill does not reduce the plaintiff's burden of proof or allow frivolous claims to bypass scrutiny. Judges and juries still determine whether the medical services were necessary and the charges reasonable. The bill merely removes a specific evidentiary formality (the affidavit), not the underlying requirement to prove damages. Individuals must still substantiate their claims through evidence, testimony, or cross-examination if challenged, which preserves the principle that people are responsible for justifying their claims in court.
- Free Enterprise: While the bill does not directly affect businesses, it may modestly benefit the legal and insurance markets by streamlining the litigation process and reducing settlement delays in lower-value claims. It can also reduce legal costs for both plaintiffs and defendants, fostering a more efficient civil justice system. Additionally, by reducing unnecessary reliance on expert witnesses, the bill helps prevent inflated litigation expenses that can distort cost structures in legal and healthcare services.
- Private Property Rights: The bill does not address tangible or intangible property rights and therefore has no meaningful impact on this principle. However, to the extent that civil litigation may involve personal injury cases that intersect with property rights (e.g., premises liability), the bill's procedural simplification could support more efficient adjudication of such disputes.
- Limited Government: The bill reinforces the principle of limited government by eliminating a procedural requirement that imposes unnecessary costs and bureaucratic complexity on civil litigants. The affidavit rule was meant to streamline litigation, but in practice, it has created a costly hurdle for low-dollar claims. Removing it for claims under $50,000 rolls back a procedural mandate that has outlived its usefulness for smaller cases. The bill thereby reduces government overreach into how parties must prove routine, lower-value claims.
