Tennessee House Bill HB2155

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 8/16/26
• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/5/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 24; Title 29, Chapter 26 and Title 50, Chapter 6, relative to opinions as to medical findings.

Summary

HB2155 expands who may provide expert testimony about medical findings in Tennessee civil cases. The bill allows a properly qualified licensed nurse practitioner or licensed physician assistant to testify, under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, about diagnosis, necessary medical care, the reasonableness of treatment charges, medical causation, and other matters ordinarily permitted to a physician. This authority applies in civil actions generally, but not in health care liability actions or workers’ compensation claims. The bill also makes clear that it does not authorize nurse practitioners or physician assistants to be included on workers’ compensation panels, and it does not allow them to testify in workers’ compensation cases about impairment ratings, disability ratings, or whether an injury is work-related. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated sections in Title 24, Title 29, Chapter 26, and Title 50, Chapter 6 to broaden expert witness eligibility in civil litigation while preserving existing limits in medical malpractice and workers’ compensation matters. In practice, it would give parties in most civil cases more flexibility to use nurse practitioners and physician assistants as medical experts on diagnosis, treatment, charges, and causation, potentially affecting how medical evidence is presented and litigated in Tennessee courts.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the available record. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears aimed at expanding access to qualified medical testimony and clarifying the scope of permissible expert opinions, suggesting a generally practical, procedural purpose rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The main point of contention is the boundary between expanded expert testimony and the areas the bill excludes. Supporters would likely favor the broader use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants to reduce reliance on physicians and improve access to expert testimony, while opponents may be concerned about limiting such testimony in health care liability and workers’ compensation cases or about the qualifications of non-physician providers to opine on causation and treatment. The bill expressly preserves restrictions on workers’ compensation impairment, disability, and work-relatedness opinions, indicating those issues were likely sensitive.