West Virginia House Bill HB4873

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/26
• Refer: 1/28/26

Caption

To remove the 2 year timeframe for medical malpractice suits to be filed only for individuals who were minors when they had their procedures performed

Summary

HB4873 amends West Virginia’s medical professional liability statute to change the limitations period for medical malpractice claims brought by or on behalf of minors. The bill’s stated purpose is to clarify when a minor may bring a medical malpractice cause of action, and the caption indicates it is intended to remove the two-year filing timeframe for malpractice suits only for individuals who were minors when they received the procedure or treatment at issue. Under the bill, the general limitations rules for medical injury claims remain in place for adults and for claims against most health care providers: most actions must be filed within two years, while claims against nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and certain related entities remain subject to a one-year period. The bill specifically revises subsection (c) governing minors, replacing the current language with a new rule that allows a minor’s claim to be filed within two years of the injury or before the minor’s 12th birthday, whichever is longer, and in any event within five years after the minor turns 18. The bill also leaves intact the tolling rule for fraud or concealment and the venue rule for certain long-term care-related defendants. The practical effect is to extend and clarify the time available for minors to pursue medical malpractice claims, especially where the injury is discovered later or the child is too young to sue immediately. It would alter the statute of limitations in West Virginia Code §55-7B-4 and affect health care providers, hospitals, and malpractice defendants by creating a distinct filing window for minor plaintiffs while preserving the existing deadlines for other claimants. The available context suggests the bill is generally framed as a consumer- or patient-protection measure focused on children, with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. Because there are no transcripts or vote tallies, there is no documented public sentiment in the record beyond the bill’s stated purpose and caption. The main point of contention implied by the text is the balance between access to court for injured minors and the desire to limit long-tail malpractice exposure for providers. Supporters would likely view the bill as ensuring children have a fair opportunity to bring claims once they are old enough or once injuries are discovered, while opponents may be concerned that extending filing periods increases liability uncertainty for physicians, hospitals, and insurers.

Impact

HB4873 would amend West Virginia Code §55-7B-4, the statute governing medical professional liability limitations periods, by changing the rule for claims involving minors and leaving the broader framework for adult claims and long-term care defendants largely intact. It would create a longer and more explicit filing window for minor plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, while preserving the existing two-year general limitation period, the one-year period for nursing homes and similar facilities, the fraud/concealment tolling provision, and the venue rule for certain long-term care defendants.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have a generally sympathetic, child-protective framing based on its stated purpose and caption, but the record provided contains no committee testimony or votes to show formal support or opposition. In the absence of recorded debate, the likely sentiment is that the measure is intended to help minors preserve malpractice claims, while any resistance would come from health care and liability interests concerned about expanded exposure and delayed litigation.

Contention

The central issue is whether minors should have a longer or more flexible statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims than adult plaintiffs. Supporters are likely to argue that children need additional time because injuries may not be fully understood or actionable until later, while critics may argue that extending the filing period makes claims harder to defend and increases costs for providers and insurers. The bill’s effect on long-term care defendants is less direct, but the broader malpractice liability environment could still be a point of concern for hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, and their insurers.