On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 5 during a contentious session at which several attempts to ease the $250,000 non-economic damage cap were rebuffed.

By a 15-14 vote, the Committee defeated an amendment that would have raised the cap to $1.6 million. Subsequently, in a 17-10 vote, the Committee also rejected an amendment to adjust the cap for inflation.

The Committee then approved H.R. 5 by a 15-13 vote.

The Judiciary Committee thus joined the House Energy and Commerce Committee in approving the legislation. The Energy and Commerce Committee okayed the bill by voice vote without amendments on Tuesday.

In addition to capping non-economic damages at $250,000, H.R. 5 would place restrictions on punitive damages. Under the legislation, punitive damages would be limited to $250,000 or two times compensatory damages, whichever is greater.

Moreover, punitive damages could only be awarded if the plaintiff presents "clear and convincing evidence of malicious intent to injure or a deliberate failure to avoid substantially certain, unnecessary injury."

Punitive damages could not be awarded for claims associated with medical products that comply with Food and Drug Administration standards in most cases.

In addition, H.R. 5 eliminates the doctrine of joint and several liability in medical malpractice cases. This means that each defendant would only be responsible for his or her share of damages, rather than being individually responsible for the entire amount.

H.R. 5 also requires plaintiffs in most cases to bring lawsuits within three years of the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the harm.

H.R. 5 is supported both by health insurers and the property-casualty insurance industry, which argue that runaway medical costs are driving up the cost of health care and liability insurance.

The legislation is opposed by trial lawyers and consumer groups, which insist that the crisis in medical malpractice insurance is due largely to property-casualty industry practices.

The legislation will likely face much tougher going in the Senate, where it will need 60 votes to overcome an expected filibuster by opponents.