Limiting noneconomic damages awarded in  actions against long-term care providers;  actions against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters of certain products;  confidentiality of health care services reviews;  use as evidence of information regarding health care providers;  reporting of quality indicators identifying individual hospitals;  homicide or injury by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire;  criminal abuse of individuals at risk;  criminal abuse and neglect of patients and residents;  evidence of lay and expert witnesses;  damages for frivolous claims; and  punitive damage awards.I've numbered the individual clauses.
Presumably  is to be read as leading directly from the prefatory language, i.e., "Limiting noneconomic damages awarded in actions against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters of certain products." At least, that's what the drafter's use of semicolons would appear to indicate. But then that method of construction collapses, as "Limiting noneconomic damages awarded in confidentiality of health care services reviews" doesn't make any sense at all.
Three of the clauses refer to damages awarded by juries: , , and . One clause refers to damages awarded by the court:  (juries are not empaneled to assess the legal meritoriousness of civil claims, unless Walker is contemplating a new cause of action for filing frivolous lawsuits). Two clauses refer to the rules of evidence:  and . Clauses  and  have something to do with privacy.
Clauses , , and  maybe have some application to the State criminal code, or maybe refer to civil actions. Or both. Who knows, where reference is made to "homicide" and "negligence" in the same breath. Furthermore, negligent handling of weapons and explosives fall into entirely separate categories of defendants' liability.
In either scenario, Scott Walker's proposed adjustments — whatever they turn out to be — hopefully are weighted toward protecting victims rather than corporate defendants. The latter were apparently the objects of his vague campaign promises invoking "tort reform."
On the other hand, the paragraph is presented pursuant to Walker's alleged finding that "Wisconsin has for too long been stifled by burdensome regulation and costly litigation," so perhaps he actually wants to relax sanctions for "criminal abuse of individuals at risk," or else restrict those individuals' access to the judicial system.
Because it's manifestly unclear which of the clauses relate to the introductory language, or how. As a whole, this paragraph of his Executive Order # 1 effectively scans as hastily assembled gibberish.
Related: Prosser will "complement" GOP political branches