HD12 - Virginia's Medical Malpractice Laws

  • Published: 1986
  • Author: General Assembly. Joint Subcommittee
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 209 (Regular Session, 1985)

Executive Summary:
Following a thorough review of Virginia's medical malpractice laws, the joint subcommittee makes the following recommendations:

1. That the provisions of law applicable to the limitation on recovery against charitable hospitals under § 8.01-38 be clarified to avoid a possible construction of § 8.01-581.15 to apply the higher limitation, generally applicable to health care providers, to charitable hospitals (Appendix C);

2. That an exception to the general provisions governing accrual of a cause of action for personal injuries be provided for medical malpractice actions involving foreign objects left in the body or fraudulent concealment of, or intentional misrepresentation with respect to, the injury, subject to a maximum extension of the applicable statute of limitations of ten years from the date of the injury in order to alleviate the harshness of the general rule in these cases involving injuries which are not readily apparent (Appendix C); and

3. That, in order to improve the credibility, guarantee the impartiality and increase the efficiency of the medical malpractice review panels, the provisions governing the review panels be modified in the following ways: that the panel members be required to take a specific oath of impartiality, that the panel members be specifically authorized and instructed to apply their particular expertise to the facts, that the rules for assembly of and access to the record of the panel proceedings be codified, that the size of the panel be reduced to five, that evidentiary submissions be limited to relevant portions of documents, that the procedure used in selecting the panel members be clarified, that the chairman be authorized to set dates for the completion of discovery and a hearing, if requested, that the procedures to be followed when an amendment to the notice of claim is requested be codified, and that it be made clear that a constitutional objection to the review panel proceeding is not waived by participation in such a proceeding (Appendix D).