A high-stakes bill focused on limiting payouts for personal injury cases and wrongful death lawsuits has quietly died in the Texas legislature. Introduced in 2025, Senate Bill 30 (SB 30) threatened to drastically shift how medical damages for personal injury claims could be recovered, promising “tort reform” rooted in “reasonable” medical costs.
Here’s why plaintiffs’ attorneys, consumer advocates, and others opposed SB 30, with more on:
- SB 30: A Closer Look at the Texas Tort Reform Proposal
- Bill Timeline: How SB 30 Stalled in the Texas Legislature
- The Fallout: What the Bill’s Failure Means for Personal Injury Cases in Texas
- What’s Next? Legal Status Quo While the Debate Continues
To explore more personal injury matters, check out How Personal Injury Lawsuits Work in Texas, Top Questions Asked About Personal Injury Lawsuits, and How to Find the Right Personal Injury Lawyer.
SB 30: A Closer Look at the Texas Tort Reform Proposal
Senate Bill 30 was aimed at ending “massive” personal injury verdicts by instituting sweeping changes that could have done the following, had this bill had passed into law:
- Limit recoveries for medical bills: SB 30 would have only allowed plaintiffs to present damages for medical treatments that had been paid for, rather than what was billed.
- Invoke Medicare rates for some claims: SB 30 would let the court use Medicare rates or other low benchmarks to decide “reasonable” medical costs for unpaid bills and uninsured plaintiffs.
- Remove jury discretion: SB 30 would have sidelined juries, replacing their opinions on medical bill reasonableness with court-imposed formulas and, in turn, removing the flexibility to account for unique, plaintiff-specific situations.
With these and other stipulations, SB 30 has been criticized for pushing terms that largely appear to protect insurance companies and defendants at the expense of injured people. That’s garnered intense backlash, with opponents arguing that SB 30 could:
- Penalize the uninsured and poor: If SB 30 became law, plaintiffs without insurance or the ability to pay their medical bills would be subject to Medicare rates or other low benchmarks to calculate “reasonable” damages. This would likely lead to massively undervalued claims, even though the plaintiff may be on the hook for full-rate charges.
- Discourage providers from treating victims on credit: If doctors know they’ll only be paid Medicare-level rates, they could be reluctant to offer care under letters of protection (LOPs). LOPs are formal guarantees from personal injury attorneys to medical providers, stating that providers will be paid from the client’s future settlement or court award, allowing the injured to receive treatment without upfront payments.
- Give insurance companies and defendants an upper hand: Critics worried that SB 30 could effectively authorize insurers to pay out less, not just by reducing medical damages but also by weakening a jury’s perception of harm suffered. Along with lower settlements, opponents were concerned about fewer treatment options and watered-down justice for the victims who are suffering from permanent injuries and irreversible losses.
Bill Timeline: How SB 30 Stalled in the Texas Legislature
Though SB 30 had early momentum, it ultimately failed to become law. Here’s a concise timeline of its legislative path:
- March 13, 2025: Sen. Charles Schwertner files SB 30 in the Texas Senate.
- March 31, 2025: A public hearing for SB 30 is held in the Senate, with testimony recorded and the bill gaining traction.
- April 16, 2025: SB 30 passes the full Senate in a 20–11 vote after being favorably reported out of committee.
- April 22, 2025: The bill is sent to the Texas House and referred to the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee.
- May 21, 2025: The House approves a substitute version of SB 30 with major changes, including giving judges more discretion over evidence.
- May 26 to 28, 2025: The House passes its amended version (HB 4806), but the Senate refuses to accept the changes.
- June 2, 2025: The legislative session ends without the conference committee coming to an agreement. With that, SB 30 fails to become law.
The Fallout: What the Bill’s Failure Means for Personal Injury Cases in Texas
By dying in conference committee, SB 30 preserved the current framework for seeking medical damages in Texas personal injury cases, including catastrophic injury claims and wrongful death lawsuits. That means that:
- Plaintiffs can continue to present billed medical expenses as evidence of damages, even if the amounts paid were less due to insurance or negotiated discounts.
- Plaintiffs and medical providers can continue to rely on LOPs, preserving access to medical care on “credit” for the uninsured.
- Juries continue to have discretion in weighing the reasonableness of medical costs.
The bill’s defeat has been viewed as a significant win for the plaintiffs of personal injury cases. However, the bill’s failure doesn’t mean the issue has been settled altogether.
What’s Next? Legal Status Quo While the Debate Continues
Dead for the moment, SB 30 has sparked contentious conversations about tort reform in Texas, and these conversations are far from over. With sky-high stakes for plaintiffs, insurers, and many others, similar proposals could take center stage in future legislative sessions.
When that happens, the next legislative round could bring very different results.
Regardless, the controversy surrounding SB 30 makes one thing clear—insurance companies that fight personal injury cases don’t just fight victims and individual claims in court; they’re also fighting at the state level to change the rules that disadvantages victims.