Assembly Bill 553
Arbitration agreements used by long-term care facilities, civil and criminal actions against health care providers and long-term care providers, use in civil and criminal actions and confidentiality of incident and occurrence reports, use as evidence of records given to a regulatory agency, use in criminal actions of records of reviews and evaluations of health care providers, limits on noneconomic damages, limits on punitive damages, and providing a penalty. (FE)
Stopped in committee
It never got a , so it never came up for a vote. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.
-
Introduced, passed
Dec 9, 2013
-
Committee, stopped here
Stopped here. No public hearing was held.
-
Assembly vote, not reached
-
Senate vote, not reached
-
Governor, not reached
-
Law, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 8, 2014: “Failed to pass pursuant to ”
It never got a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. See every bill that never got a hearing this session.
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Public hearing
A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
What it would have done
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
This bill makes several changes to current law regarding contractual agreements between long-term care facilities and their clients, civil actions for negligence in long-term care facilities, punitive damages in civil actions, certain criminal actions against health care providers, and the confidentiality and use of reviews, incident reports, and evaluations of health care providers.
arbitration agreements in long-term care contracts Under current law, with few exceptions, contractual agreements that compel parties to litigation to submit to arbitration to resolve all or part of the dispute between the parties are enforceable.
Read the full summary Show less
This bill prohibits an adult family home, a residential care apartment complex, a community-based residential facility, a nursing home, a home health agency, or hospice (long-term care facility) from requiring a resident or client to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of admission, retaliating against a resident or client for not signing an arbitration agreement, or charging more money to a resident or client for not signing an arbitration agreement. The bill includes specific penalties for retaliating against a resident or client for not signing an arbitration agreement.
A long-term care facility that requests residents or clients to sign an arbitration agreement must provide the arbitration agreement as a separate document in another color and larger type size from any other admission agreement. The bill also requires a long-term care facility to allow a resident or client to cancel an arbitration agreement within 30 days after signing that provision and to include language about the right to cancel in the arbitration agreement.
limits on noneconomic damages Under current law, a person, or certain people related to the person, who is injured by the negligence of a long-term care provider, such as a nursing home, hospice, or assisted living facility, may sue for economic damages and for noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are intended to compensate for pain and suffering, loss of companionship, mental distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Current law limits noneconomic damages to $750,000 per occurrence of negligence. Current law also limits damages for loss of society and companionship to certain relatives recoverable in a wrongful death action against a long-term care provider to $500,000 in the case of a deceased minor and $350,000 in the case of a deceased adult.
Under current law, a person, or certain people related to the person, who is injured by the long-term care provider may bring a civil action no later than three years from the date on which the injury occurred, or within one year that the injury was discovered or should have been discovered, except that, if a long-term care provider conceals an act or omission that results in an injury, within one year from the date on which the concealment was discovered or should have been discovered.
If the injury or concealment is discovered after the three-year limit has expired, the person may still bring suit for up to five years after the long-term care provider's act or omission.
The bill eliminates the limit on noneconomic damages and applies the general three-year statute of limitations for torts to actions for negligence against a long-term care provider.
Incident reports and health care provider reviews Under current law, information acquired in connection with the review or evaluation of a health care provider and incident or occurrence reports (incident reports) must be kept confidential by a person who participates in the review or evaluation. An incident report is a written or oral statement that is made to notify a person, organization, or an evaluator who reviews or evaluates the services of health care providers or charges for such services of an incident, practice, or other situation that becomes the subject of such a review or evaluation. The persons, organizations, or evaluators who review or evaluate the services of health care providers for certain reasons must keep a record of their investigations, inquiries, proceedings, and conclusions. Current law prohibits these records of a review or evaluation from being used in any civil or criminal action against the health care provider.
This bill allows the disclosure of incident or occurrence reports by a person who participates in the review or evaluation of the health care provider and removes the prohibition against using incident reports in a civil or criminal action. The bill also allows records of a review or evaluation to be used in criminal actions. A person who participates in the review or evaluation of the services or charges of a health care provider is required, under the bill, to disclose an incident report to a court with regard to a criminal matter, under certain conditions. The bill also requires information acquired in connection with the review or evaluation to be disclosed to a court in a criminal matter, under certain conditions.
health care provider regulatory records Current law prohibits records given or disclosed to a regulatory agency and statements of, or records of interviews with, employees of a health care provider obtained by a regulatory agency (regulatory records) from being used as evidence in a civil or criminal action brought against a health care provider. A regulatory agency, in this instance, is either the Department of Safety and Professional Services or the division within the Department of Health Services that conducts quality assurance activities related to health care providers. The bill eliminates the prohibition against using regulatory records as evidence in a civil or criminal action.
punitive damages Under current law, punitive damages may be assessed with civil case if the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or with intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. Current law limits punitive damages to the greater of twice the amount of compensatory damages recovered by the plaintiff or $200,000 unless the defendant's actions included the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree that rendered the defendant incapable of the safe operation of that vehicle. The bill creates a new exception to the limitation on punitive damages sought from a nursing home, adult family home, residential care apartment complex, or community-based residential care facility when the defendant is an administrator, agent, director, employee, officer, or operator of a nursing home, adult family home, residential care apartment complex, or community-based residential care facility and the actions of the defendant take place in that facility.
Because this bill creates a new crime or revises a penalty for an existing crime, the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties may be requested to prepare a report concerning the proposed penalty and the costs or savings that are likely to result if the bill is enacted.
Who's behind it
28 lawmakers are its . All 28 are Democrats.
10 more lawmakers .
See all 38 names Hide the names
Authors (28)
- Mandela Barnes · Democrat, Assembly
- Terese Berceau · Democrat, Assembly
- Jill Billings · Democrat, Assembly
- Chris Taylor · Democrat, Assembly
- Fred Clark · Democrat, Assembly
- Chris Danou · Democrat, Assembly
- Evan Goyke · Democrat, Assembly
- Gary Hebl · Democrat, Assembly
- Gordon Hintz · Democrat, Assembly
- LaTonya Johnson · Democrat, Senate
- Andy Jorgensen · Democrat, Assembly
- Frederick Kessler · Democrat, Assembly
- Cory Mason · Democrat, Assembly
- Nick Milroy · Democrat, Assembly
- Tod Ohnstad · Democrat, Assembly
- Sondy Pope · Democrat, Assembly
- Jon Richards · Democrat, Assembly
- Daniel Riemer · Democrat, Assembly
- Janis Ringhand · Democrat, Senate
- Melissa Sargent · Democrat, Assembly
- Katrina Shankland · Democrat, Assembly
- Christine Sinicki · Democrat, Assembly
- Amy Sue Vruwink · Democrat, Assembly
- Dana Wachs · Democrat, Assembly
- Mandy Wright · Democrat, Assembly
- Leon Young · Democrat, Assembly
- JoCasta Zamarripa · Democrat, Assembly
- Josh Zepnick · Democrat, Assembly
Signed on in support (10)
- Chris Larson · Democrat, Senate
- Tim Carpenter · Democrat, Senate
- Jon Erpenbach · Democrat, Senate
- Dave Hansen · Democrat, Senate
- Nikiya Harris Dodd · Democrat, Senate
- Lena Taylor · Democrat, Senate
- Julie M. Lassa · Democrat, Senate
- John Lehman · Democrat, Senate
- Fred A. Risser · Democrat, Senate
- Timothy Cullen · Democrat, Senate
How lawmakers voted
There was one vote on this bill. Taking a bill up right away needs two-thirds of the members, a higher bar than passing it, so that vote can draw more yeses than the final one.
Assembly vote to take it up right away
Failed, 38 to 60 · Feb 13, 2014
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Judiciary and take up, Ayes 38, Noes 60”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 8, 2014
The session ended, and the bill died with it.
-
Dec 9, 2013
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.
-
Dec 9, 2013
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Dec 9, 2013 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Richards, Hebl, Wachs, Goyke, Barnes, Berceau, Billings, Jorgensen, Kessler, Mason, Milroy, Ohnstad, Pope, Riemer, Ringhand, Sargent, Shankland, Sinicki, C. Taylor, Vruwink, Wright, Young, Zamarripa, Zepnick, Hintz, Johnson, Clark and Danou; cosponsored by Senators T. Cullen, Carpenter, Erpenbach, Hansen, Harris, C. Larson, Lassa, Lehman, Risser and L. Taylor
- Dec 9, 2013 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to Committee on Judiciary
- Feb 13, 2014 · Assembly
Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Judiciary and take up, Ayes 38, Noes 60
- Apr 8, 2014 · Assembly
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
Terms on this page
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Public hearing
A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Public hearing
A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote