SB 65-LIABILITY CONSULTING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER  6:17:18 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 65(JUD), "An Act relating to immunity for consulting physicians, podiatrists, osteopaths, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, chiropractors, dentists, optometrists, and pharmacists." [Before the committee was HCS CSSB 65(HSS).] CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Mason's Manual section 1.2 that emphasizes orderly and businesslike consideration of questions before the body to eliminate confusion and waste of time and effort. CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the bill had been introduced to address potential ambiguity in Alaska medical malpractice law as it pertains to "curbside consults" where a medical professional may consult with another medical professional who has no doctor/patient relationship with the patient receiving treatment. He referred to the State of Minnesota court case Warren v. Dinter had raised the question whether a doctor/patient relationship must exist for liability to be established in a medical malpractice claim. He referred to three Alaska Supreme Court Cases, M.A v the United States (1998), Smith v. Radecke (2010), and Cornelison v. TIG Insurance (2016) may have left ambiguity whether the doctor/patient relationship must exist in a malpractice claim, SB 65 seeks to remedy that ambiguity. He stated that multiple amendments may have detracted from the bill sponsor's intent of the bill. He stated that adding the physician/patient requirement to the medical malpractice statute, AS 09.55.540, would remove ambiguity that may exist in court opinions and in statute and uses fewer words. He suggested it would result in fewer lawsuits and less confusion among providers and patients. 6:21:13 PM SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, Alaska State Legislature, stated that the fundamental purpose of SB 65 was elegantly restated via the proposed committee substitute before the committee, despite being a significantly different approach than the initial draft of SB 65. He added that the committee substitute would remove the question of whether a medical professional may be held liable for medical malpractice outside of a doctor/patient relationship and it would maintain focus on medical malpractice liability. He stated his appreciation for the committee substitute's limitation to parties to a malpractice lawsuit and would not permit non-party participation. He expressed his support for the adoption of the committee substitute. 6:24:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to adopt the committee substitute labeled 32-LS0002\R, Fisher, 5/17/21. There being no objection, the work draft was adopted. 6:26:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his appreciation of the elegance and precision arrived at in cooperation with the bill's sponsor within the committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER stated that she had observed the deliberation of SB 65 that had taken place in the House Health and Social Services Standing Committee and lauded the solution put forth in the committee substitute, which she also characterized as elegant. REPRESENTATIVE KURKA lauded the brevity of the committee substitute and asked what prompted eliminating the consideration of "duty of care" that had been addressed in the underlying bill. CHAIR CLAMAN reiterated the opening comments that he had offered during the introduction of the committee substitute. CHAIR CLAMAN shared that the committee substitute reflected the clarity that was required to address concerns brought by members of the medical profession that they could be sued by an individual who is not his/her patient. 6:30:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report CS for HCS CSSB 65(HSS), Version ..., out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 65(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.