Subcommittee advances bill to allow prejudgment interest in certain medical‑malpractice cap cases, 7–1
Loading...
Summary
A sponsor-funded change to allow prejudgment interest to be added to capped medical‑malpractice awards advanced out of subcommittee after debate and testimony from trial lawyers, hospitals, and insurers; the measure passed the panel 7–1 with opponents warning of premium increases and precedent concerns.
The House Civil Law Subcommittee on SB (medical malpractice) advanced a measure that would allow prejudgment interest to be awarded on cases that are subject to Virginia’s $2.7 million cap for medical‑malpractice damages.
The bill’s sponsor told the committee the change is "small" and targeted: it would allow injured plaintiffs who have been adjudicated to amounts above the cap to receive the time value of money while preserving the cap’s basic structure. The sponsor, who said he began his legal career defending malpractice cases, argued the measure would help families forced to wait years for resolution and that insurers already hold reserves that earn interest on those funds.
Supporters, including the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, testified the bill would correct an inequity for plaintiffs who are entitled to awards but limited by the statutory cap. Elliot Buckner of the association said the measure would apply primarily to capped verdicts and would not make interest automatic; a party still must ask a jury to award prejudgment interest.
Opponents—representatives for hospitals, long‑term care providers and the Virginia Chamber of Commerce—warned the change would affect settlement negotiations, increase insurers’ costs and premiums, and undermine long‑standing judicial precedent that treats prejudgment interest as part of the cap (counsel referenced Pulliam v. Coastal Emergency Services). Scott Johnson, general counsel for medical provider groups, said the bill could affect pending cases because it lacks explicit prospective‑only language.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on whether the change "raises the cap" in practice. The sponsor replied the statutory cap itself would not be rewritten but acknowledged that adding interest in certain cases could effectively increase total recovery in rare cases that go to trial. Counsel noted the general presumption that bills are prospective unless an enactment clause says otherwise.
After questions and discussion, the subcommittee voted to report the bill to the next stage, 7–1. The committee record shows the amendment and roll call in support of advancing the measure.
