Medical malpractice; limitation on recovery; certain actions.
Summary
SB 904 amends Virginia’s medical malpractice damages cap statute, Code of Virginia § 8.01-581.15. The bill keeps the existing schedule of capped recoveries for malpractice claims based on when the alleged act occurred, but extends the cap schedule forward through June 30, 2031 and sets a new cap of $3 million for malpractice occurring on or after July 1, 2031. It also preserves the rule that older claims are governed by the cap in effect when the malpractice occurred.
The bill creates a new exception to the cap for malpractice actions involving patients age 10 or younger, for acts occurring on or after July 1, 2025. In those cases, the statutory limitation on recovery would not apply. The bill otherwise leaves in place the general framework limiting verdicts and judgments against health care providers in medical malpractice cases, and it continues to rely on the definitions in § 8.01-581.1.
Impact
If enacted, SB 904 would directly change Virginia’s medical malpractice liability rules by increasing the maximum recoverable amount for future claims and by exempting certain claims involving very young children from the cap. This would affect health care providers, malpractice insurers, injured patients, and courts handling malpractice verdicts and judgments. It would amend and reenact § 8.01-581.15, which is the state’s principal medical malpractice damages cap statute, and would likely have implications for insurance exposure and litigation strategy in malpractice cases.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generated mixed but active committee support, with enough backing to move it out of the Senate Committee on Courts of Justice and then into Finance and Appropriations. However, it was later passed by indefinitely in Finance and Appropriations, indicating that the proposal did not advance further. The vote pattern suggests some interest in revisiting the malpractice cap, but not sufficient consensus to enact the change during this session.
Contention
The main point of contention is the medical malpractice damages cap itself: supporters likely view the bill as a measured update that raises the cap over time and creates an exception for very young children, while opponents likely object to increasing provider liability exposure or to removing the cap for a subset of cases. The child-patient exception is especially notable because it creates a carveout from a long-standing statewide limitation on recovery, which may have raised concerns among health care and insurance stakeholders. The committee votes suggest the issue was divisive, with substantial opposition at each stage.