Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Malpractice Certification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel considers requiring earlier, clearer expert certifications in medical-malpractice suits
Summary
A Senate Courts of Justice subcommittee reviewed Senate Bill 892, which would clarify the language medical experts must use when certifying malpractice claims and require plaintiffs to serve that certification within 21 days after a defendant answers; supporters say the bill restores legislative intent while opponents did not appear.
Senators on the Senate Courts of Justice Civil Law Subcommittee heard testimony on Senate Bill 892 on expert certifications in medical-malpractice cases. Senator Sturtevant, the bill’s patron, said the bill clarifies what expert certifications must state and requires plaintiffs to serve the certification to defense counsel within 21 days of the defendant’s answer.
"Current law, when you have a medical malpractice case as the plaintiff's attorney, you've got to make sure that you've got an expert who will certify that there was a breach of the standard of care and that breach, caused the client's injuries," Senator Sturtevant said. He described the bill as a restatement of the existing standard and said the bill clarifies that the certification must state that "based upon a reasonable understanding of the facts, the defendant ... deviated from the applicable standard of care, and the deviation was a proximate cause of the injury claimed." He also said the bill would change the timing, creating an affirmative obligation on the plaintiff to certify within 21 days of receiving the defendant’s answer.
Mark Deeks, speaking for the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, told the committee the association supports the bill and thanked the senator for bringing it, calling the measure a restoration of the General Assembly’s intent when the certification requirement was originally adopted. "So we appreciate the support of the bill," Deeks said.
No witnesses formally opposed the bill in the hearing. After questions from subcommittee members about formatting in the code text, the subcommittee moved the bill to a committee report; the transcript records the motion and closing of the roll but does not include a published tally in the excerpts provided.
The bill’s sponsor and supporters said the change was worked out with stakeholders including medical and hospital groups on the Senate side; the transcript records that agreement but does not include a text-by-text readout of any final compromise language or a full record of cross-agency approvals. The subcommittee did not adopt amendments on the floor of the excerpted hearing.
