"I thought our intent was that we would be covered by BRIM and we would not have any civil liability beyond what BRIM covers, and this does not do that," Stollings said.
He said the proposal contains "extreme vagueness" that would still make doctors think twice about rendering care.
"I certainly appreciate the fact that we're trying to move forward on this, but if anything I think this is a step backwards," Stollings said.
There are Good Samaritan laws that protect people who respond to emergencies. However, Majestro noted that some non-life threatening injuries, such as a broken ankle or sprain, might not be covered under that law.
Majestro also said allowing liability insurance coverage, instead of blanket immunity, had some benefits.
"I think this bill is still a good thing for those who seek to be volunteers because insurance coverage provides you a coverage that immunity doesn't, because they pay for the lawyers," he said. "The existence of the BRIM coverage provides both the indemnity and the defense to the action should somebody file a suit."
Sen. Bob Plymale, D-Wayne, said he didn't want children to miss out on immediate medical attention because doctors were worried about being exposed to lawsuits.
He said the state should give doctors enough liability coverage so they won't hesitate.
"I want to make sure we cover them," Plymale said.
He said he agreed with Stollings' approach to provide either immunity or BRIM coverage to any medical professionals who spontaneously respond to events.
The committee's staff will continue working on the plan and provide lawmakers with an updated draft during January interim meetings.
Plymale said he hoped the new draft would take care of some of the concerns Stollings brought up.
"We really would like to take care of it to the fullest extent so that in January when we come back we can have a bill that can go before the full committee and can be voted on and we're not going to have a fight like we did with the last session," he said.