Civil subcommittee reports Senate Bill 536, sets $6 million medical-malpractice cap

A Virginia House civil subcommittee voted to report Senate Bill 536 with a committee substitute that sets a $6,000,000 cap on medical-malpractice recoveries, ties future adjustments to the medical-care component of the CPI-U, and limits additional prejudgment interest recovery.

The substitute, as presented by committee counsel, applies to malpractice actions occurring on or after July 1, 2027; directs the Department of Planning and Budget to calculate the two‑year CPI-U adjustment by June 30, 2029 and every two years thereafter; and specifies that when a verdict plus prejudgment interest exceeds the recoverable amount under the cap, a patient may recover up to two years of prejudgment interest in addition to the capped amount. The substitute also limits suits against a health‑care provider's personal income or assets in most cases unless the court finds elements now described in the statute; the committee adopted an amendment replacing the phrase 'complete neglect' with 'gross neglect.'

Why it matters: supporters said the substitute gives predictability to patients and providers and preserves the long‑standing cap in the Commonwealth; opponents warned the higher cap and extended discovery provisions could increase claims, raise insurance costs, and threaten access to care in rural and underserved communities.

"This is a number of years coming," Elliot Buckner, a trial attorney who said he was appearing for a plaintiff‑side coalition, told the committee. "It strikes the correct balance between the two." Buckner praised the compromise that produced the substitute and said stakeholders worked collaboratively to reach the proposal before the subcommittee.

Scott Johnson, general counsel for the medical society who also represented nursing‑home interests, urged caution. "If you remember nothing I say today, remember this: nothing is free," Johnson said, warning that the substitute could increase litigation costs and premiums and that some carriers might not offer coverage at the new level without further actuarial study.

Les Bowers, a plaintiffs' attorney, said severely injured patients routinely face damages that exceed the existing cap and urged support for a higher figure. "Everyone thinks a cap is a good idea until it affects them and their family," Bowers told the panel.

Representatives of hospitals, the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, insurers and free clinics told the committee the substitute could have unintended consequences. A representative of the Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association said, "This is too much, too fast," and warned that rapid increases in the cap could threaten access and raise costs, particularly in rural areas. Rufus Phillips, CEO of the Virginia Association of Free and Charitable Clinics, said higher med‑mal premiums could jeopardize volunteer providers and the clinics that serve vulnerable Virginians.

The committee debated both policy and process. Several members said the compound changes in two weeks produced 'whiplash'—moving the bill from a narrow prejudgment‑interest cleanup to a substitute that raises the cap and changes limitations and statutes of limitation. Supporters argued tying the cap to CPI‑U adjustments reduces the need for repeated legislative fixes.

Delegate Kilgore offered an amendment to replace the substitute's term "complete neglect" with "gross neglect" in the section limiting recovery against a provider's personal assets; the committee adopted that amendment by voice vote.

Procedural outcome: Delegate Simon moved that the committee report the bill with the committee substitute; the motion was seconded and the subcommittee approved the substitute by roll call, 18–4. The bill will move from the subcommittee to the next House committee/floor consideration under the normal legislative process.

The subcommittee also set expectations for additional work: several witnesses and counsel asked for further actuarial study and more time to assess the substitute's impacts on insurance markets and access to care. The committee adjourned after the vote and reminded members of upcoming judicial interviews and certification votes.