California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 623 on June 25, 2026, marking the most significant shift in how rideshare accident medical damages are calculated in the state’s courts in recent memory. The law, which took effect immediately upon signing, introduces a capped lien-recovery framework tied to FAIR Health benchmark pricing, expands driver background check requirements, and mandates annual re-screening of all active Transportation Network Company (TNC) drivers starting in 2026. Notably, the medical lien provisions apply only to crashes occurring on or after January 1, 2027 — meaning victims injured in 2026 will still litigate medical damages under the prior framework. For anyone injured in an Uber or Lyft accident in California, understanding SB 623 rideshare medical damages rules is now essential to estimating what a settlement may actually be worth.
What SB 623 Actually Changes About Medical Damages in Rideshare Settlements
The core of SB 623 focuses on a long-contested issue in personal injury litigation: the gap between what a medical provider charges on a lien, what insurance actually reimburses, and what a jury ultimately sees as the “reasonable value” of medical treatment. Before SB 623, California plaintiffs in rideshare accident cases could introduce full billed charges — sometimes three to five times what Medicare or private insurers would pay — as evidence of damages. Defense attorneys for Uber and Lyft routinely challenged these figures, and juries were left to sort out wildly divergent numbers.
Under SB 623 rideshare medical damages rules, lien-based medical providers — those who agree to treat patients and defer billing until a settlement is reached — can no longer recover amounts that exceed the applicable FAIR Health benchmark for that procedure in the relevant California geographic region. FAIR Health is a nonprofit that maintains a comprehensive database of privately billed and paid health care claims; its benchmarks represent median market rates, not artificially inflated list prices. The law also increases transparency around how medical liens are structured and disclosed, a change advocates say will help injured riders better understand what portion of any settlement will actually reach their pockets.
Critically, SB 623 does not cap what a plaintiff can claim if treatment was paid through traditional insurance. If your health insurer paid your hospital bills after an Uber accident, you retain the right to claim the full reasonable value of treatment as part of your damages — the FAIR Health cap applies only to the lien-side of the ledger. And again, because SB 623’s medical lien provisions do not take effect until January 1, 2027, accidents occurring in 2026 will be governed by the pre-existing rules. This distinction matters enormously when you compare how different injury victims will fare under the new versus old framework.
How the FAIR Health Cap Works in Practice
Imagine a rideshare passenger suffers a fractured wrist requiring surgery. The treating orthopedic surgeon, working on a lien, bills $42,000. The FAIR Health 80th-percentile benchmark for that procedure in Los Angeles County is $28,500. Under SB 623, the maximum lien recovery against any rideshare settlement is $28,500 for that line item — not the billed amount. The plaintiff’s attorney negotiating with Uber or Lyft’s insurer now works from that capped figure rather than the inflated charge. This narrows the damages calculation but eliminates a significant source of uncertainty that previously caused cases to stall in litigation for years.
Separately, California rideshare passengers in 2026 also benefit from new uninsured and underinsured motorist minimums of $60,000 per person and $300,000 per accident — a meaningful increase that can matter significantly when an at-fault driver carries minimal coverage and the rideshare company’s own policy becomes the primary source of recovery.
SB 623 Driver Screening Requirements: What Changes in 2026
The second pillar of SB 623 is an expansion of criminal background check requirements for TNC drivers — and the introduction of mandatory annual re-screening for all active drivers. Previously, many drivers underwent a single background check at onboarding and faced no routine follow-up review unless a complaint triggered one. SB 623 closes that gap by requiring TNCs to re-screen every active driver on an annual basis beginning in 2026. The law also creates new safety options specifically designed for women using rideshare apps, including enhanced in-app tools intended to reduce the risk of assault and harassment. Taken together, these provisions address longstanding criticism that platforms like Uber and Lyft had prioritized driver supply over passenger safety.
Why Annual Re-Screening Matters for Negligent Hiring Claims
In personal injury litigation, a negligent hiring or negligent retention theory allows a plaintiff to argue that the rideshare company knew — or should have known — that a driver posed a risk to passengers. Annual re-screening creates a documented compliance record that cuts both ways: it gives TNCs a stronger defense when a driver passes repeated checks, but it also creates a clear paper trail when a company fails to conduct required screenings or ignores disqualifying results. For victims injured by a driver with a post-onboarding criminal history, the annual re-screening requirement could substantially strengthen a negligence claim against the platform itself.
SB 623 vs. the Failed Uber Ballot Initiative: Understanding the Difference
SB 623 did not emerge in a vacuum. In the months before the bill’s passage, Uber and Consumer Attorneys of California collectively committed more than $150 million to competing ballot initiatives — each side attempting to shape California rideshare liability law through a direct voter referendum rather than through the legislature. That expensive standoff ultimately gave way to a negotiated legislative compromise in the form of SB 623, signed on June 25, 2026. Understanding that history matters because the ballot initiative Uber had been advancing would have imposed far stricter caps on medical damages and limited plaintiffs’ ability to pursue lien-based recoveries entirely. SB 623 represents the middle ground: it reins in the most inflated lien charges through the FAIR Health benchmark while preserving plaintiffs’ core rights to full recovery when treatment was paid through conventional insurance.
Key Statistics: California Rideshare Accidents and Medical Damages
California remains the largest rideshare market in the United States, and the volume of accident claims reflects that scale. Uber and Lyft together complete hundreds of millions of trips annually in the state. Even a small fraction of those trips resulting in injury translates into a substantial number of personal injury claims each year. Medical costs in rideshare accident cases vary enormously based on injury severity, but soft-tissue and orthopedic injuries — the most common categories — routinely generate medical bills in the $15,000 to $150,000 range when treated on a lien basis. The new FAIR Health benchmarks will compress the upper end of that range for lien-treated cases beginning with accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027.
New UM/UIM minimums of $60,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, effective in 2026, also alter the statistical floor of what rideshare passengers can expect to recover when an uninsured or underinsured motorist is at fault. Before this change, victims in lower-limit scenarios often found that available insurance coverage fell far short of actual medical expenses — particularly in moderate-to-serious injury cases.
How SB 623 Affects Serious and Catastrophic Injury Cases
The FAIR Health cap has the greatest practical impact on low-to-moderate injury cases where lien-based medical billing was the primary driver of inflated damages demands. For catastrophic injuries, the calculus is different. High-impact rideshare cases — spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, wrongful death — regularly break $1,000,000 and can resolve into the eight figures, particularly when a corporate defendant’s conduct supports punitive damages or when liability is clear and injuries are permanently disabling. In these cases, non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and future earning capacity typically dwarf the medical damages component, meaning the FAIR Health cap on lien charges has a proportionally smaller effect on overall case value.
For families who have lost a loved one in a fatal rideshare accident, SB 623’s framework affects wrongful death claims in a similarly limited way. Survival damages — the decedent’s pre-death medical expenses — may be subject to the FAIR Health benchmark for accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027, but wrongful death damages including loss of financial support, loss of companionship, and funeral expenses remain outside the lien-cap structure entirely.
Fatal Rideshare Accidents Under the New Framework
Wrongful death claims arising from rideshare accidents in California follow a two-track structure: the survival action (brought on behalf of the decedent’s estate) and the wrongful death action (brought by eligible family members). SB 623’s medical lien provisions touch only the survival action’s medical damages component, and only for accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027. The wrongful death track — which typically carries the higher damages exposure for defendants — is not restructured by the new law. Attorneys handling fatal rideshare cases will need to carefully allocate damages between both tracks to ensure the full measure of the family’s loss is presented to insurers and, if necessary, to a jury.
What Rideshare Accident Victims Should Do Now
If you were injured as a passenger, pedestrian, or cyclist in a rideshare accident in California in 2026, the most important step is consulting with an attorney who understands both the pre-SB 623 framework and the new rules — because which set of rules applies to your case depends entirely on the date of your accident. Crashes occurring before January 1, 2027 will be evaluated under the old lien-recovery standards for medical damages, while accidents on or after that date will be subject to the FAIR Health benchmark cap.
Beyond the timing question, victims should take the following steps as early as possible:
- Preserve all evidence of the crash, including photographs, the rideshare app trip receipt, and any communications with drivers or platform representatives.
- Seek medical evaluation immediately, even if injuries seem minor. Many serious conditions — including traumatic brain injuries and spinal injuries — do not produce obvious symptoms in the first hours after a crash.
- Avoid providing recorded statements to any insurance company, including Uber’s or Lyft’s insurers, before speaking with an attorney.
- Document all out-of-pocket expenses, missed work, and the daily impact of your injuries in a written journal.
- Understand your UM/UIM coverage options. With new 2026 minimums of $60,000 per person and $300,000 per accident now in place, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is a more meaningful backstop than it was under prior minimums.
Frequently Asked Questions About SB 623 and Rideshare Medical Damages
Does SB 623 cap all my medical damages in a rideshare accident case?
No. SB 623’s FAIR Health benchmark cap applies only to medical providers operating on a lien basis — meaning they agreed to defer payment until your case settles. If your treatment was paid by a health insurer, Medicare, Medi-Cal, or out of pocket, those costs are not subject to the FAIR Health cap. You retain the right to claim the full reasonable value of that treatment. Additionally, the cap does not apply to any accident occurring before January 1, 2027.
What is the FAIR Health benchmark and how is it determined for my injury?
FAIR Health is an independent nonprofit organization that collects and analyzes billions of privately billed and paid health care claims across the United States. Its benchmarks represent the distribution of actual charges and payments for specific medical procedures in defined geographic regions. Under SB 623, the applicable benchmark for a given procedure is determined by the geographic area where treatment was rendered and the specific procedure code billed. The benchmark functions as a ceiling on lien-based recovery, not as a target or average.
How does SB 623’s annual driver re-screening requirement help my accident claim?
Annual re-screening creates a documented record of what Uber or Lyft knew — or was required to know — about a driver’s background at regular intervals. If a driver had a disqualifying criminal offense after initial onboarding and the platform failed to catch it through the required annual check, that failure can support a negligent retention claim against the company directly. This is separate from the negligence claim against the driver and can significantly expand the pool of available insurance coverage and assets in serious injury cases.
Is SB 623 the same as the Uber ballot initiative that failed in 2026?
No. Uber and Consumer Attorneys of California each backed competing ballot initiatives in 2026, collectively committing more than $150 million to those efforts before both sides agreed to abandon the ballot fight in favor of SB 623. The ballot initiative Uber had championed would have imposed much stricter caps on damages and would have been far more restrictive of plaintiffs’ rights than the legislation that ultimately passed. SB 623 represents a negotiated compromise that limits lien-side recoveries through the FAIR Health benchmark while preserving plaintiffs’ ability to claim full damages when treatment was covered by conventional insurance.
Does SB 623 apply to accidents that happened before June 25, 2026?
The driver re-screening and background check requirements under SB 623 took effect upon the Governor’s signing on June 25, 2026, and apply prospectively to TNC operations going forward. However, the medical lien provisions — including the FAIR Health benchmark cap — apply only to accidents occurring on or after January 1, 2027. If your accident happened before that date, your medical damages, including lien-based treatment costs, will be evaluated under the framework that existed prior to SB 623. This makes the date of your accident one of the most consequential facts in determining how your case will be valued.
Jennifer Torres is a Rideshare Accident Claims Researcher with extensive knowledge of personal injury law and settlement values across the United States. With years of experience analyzing rideshare accident claims only (high value) cases, Jennifer helps injury victims understand their legal rights and the potential value of their claims. Jennifer is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.