Texas House Bill HB166

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 11/8/10
• Refer: 2/11/11

Caption

Relating to the civil liability of an employer or former employer of a mental health services provider who engages in sexual exploitation of a patient or former patient.

Impact

This legislation aims to enhance protection for patients by holding employers accountable for the actions of their employees. It outlines specific situations where civil liability is applicable, ensuring that employers conduct due diligence in assessing the histories of their mental health providers. The bill is intended to encourage stricter compliance and oversight by mental health organizations, which may lead to a more cautious approach in hiring practices and a reduction in patient harm associated with sexual misconduct.

Summary

House Bill 166 addresses the civil liability of employers or former employers of mental health service providers who engage in sexual exploitation of their patients. The bill proposes amendments to the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, primarily focusing on the responsibilities of employers regarding the conduct of their mental health services providers. If an employer fails to inquire about a provider's potential history of sexual exploitation or does not take action upon knowing about such conduct, they could be held liable for damages incurred by affected patients or former patients.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 166 appears to be largely supportive, particularly among advocates for mental health patients' rights. Proponents argue that the bill is a crucial step in safeguarding vulnerable individuals from potential abuse by professionals in the mental health field. While there may be some concerns among employers about the implications of increased liability, the general perspective is that the bill seeks to promote accountability and ethical standards within the mental health profession.

Contention

Although HB 166 is generally viewed positively, there may be some points of contention regarding its implementation. Questions may arise surrounding the burden of proof for patients seeking damages, as well as the potential impact on mental health service providers’ employment opportunities. Opponents might argue that the bill imposes excessive liability on employers, which could deter them from hiring qualified individuals due to fear of litigation. These concerns highlight the balance that needs to be struck between protecting patients and ensuring that mental health services are adequately staffed.