In many respects, Virginia has been more conservative about modifying the common law countries than his sister. To the extent changes have been approved, a lot, but as an extension of the rights of victims of medical negligence. For example, Virginia has three important changes in medical malpractice law: a damage CAP, the proposed screening processes by a medical review panel, and a fund to compensate victims of birth in connection with neurological injuries. A large part of the legislation for medical practices can be found in Medical doctor tort law, Va. Code Ann. § § 8.01-581.1 to 8.01-581.20.

Statute of Limitations

All medical malpractice action for injury (as opposed to the death) must be filed within two years from the date on which the claim accrued interest. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243 (A). In § 8.01-230, a cause of action "accrues" at the time of the injury: "The cause of action is considered an adult and the prescribed time limit begins to run from the date of the injury is, in the event of injury to the person ... and not when the resulting damage was discovered. "

This two-year limitation has long been in force and strictly enforced, in Virginia. Virginia is one of the minority that the "day-of-the-act" rule, which means that the plaintiffs complaint must be filed within two years from the date of the violation, regardless of how obscure or impenetrable of the violation would have. Exceptions to the two-year rule are: (i) cases in which minors or persons who are mentally incapable in law as not to know their rights and (ii) if the damage from the fraudulent person.

The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the judicial adoption of a discovery rule, Nunnally v. Artis, 254 Va. 247, 492 SE2d 126, (1997), but noted that "further treatment for the same conditions" tolls the statute of limitations until treatment ends. Grubbs v. Rawls, 235 Va. 607, 369 SE2d 683 (1988). The court defined "continuous treatment" not a "mere continuation of a general physician-patient relationship, we diagnose and treat the same illness or injury relating to continue after the alleged act of misconduct." The court recognized, however, the rule would not be a single, isolated act of misconduct. Farley v. Goode, 219 Va. 969, 252 SE2d 594 (1979). In other words, if an act of the irregularities occurred, and that doctors continue to see patients on a course of years for an independent state in the rule would not apply.

In foreign cases (surgical sponges, needles, etc.) and cases of fraud or embezzlement (ie change of medical records) of the Statute is limited to one year from the date on which the property or injuries discovered or reasonably should have discovered. However, this extension is limited to ten years from the time the cause of action accrued are. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243 (C).

In cases where the provider negligence caused the death of the patient (bankruptcy wrongful death claims), the color must be made within two years of death. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-244 (B).

If a person entitled to a personal action dies with no such action before the expiration of the [two-year] statute of limitations ... then an action may be the deceased personal representative before the expiration of the statute of limitations ... or within one year after his qualification as personal representative, whichever is later.

However, § 8.01-229 (B) (6) states:

[i] f is an interval of more than two years between the death of a person in whose favor. . . Cause of action accrued or later arise and the qualifications of the person's personal representative, such personal representative for the purposes of [the statute], it is assumed that qualified on the last day of this two-year period.

A parent is responsible for medical expenses caused by the injury to a minor must be within five years. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243 (B). A minor medical liability for personal injury or death must be filed within two years from the date of the last act of negligence, unless the child is less than eight years, in this case the action must be brought by the child's tenth anniversary . Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243.1. The Virginia Supreme Court the constitutionality of these statutes. Willis v. Mullett, 263 Va. 653, 561 SE2d 705 (2002). Disability (usually a significant mental or physical disability) tolls the running of the limitation during the period of incapacity. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-229 (A).

Posted abusers or comparative negligence

Virginia recognizes the doctrine of contributory negligence in medical malpractice cases. The negligence of the plaintiff's bar in May to recover fully, but the patient must be combined with negligence of the defendants negligence. Sawyer v. Comerci, 264 Va. 68, 563 SE2d 748 (2002); Ponirakis v. Choi, 262 Va. 119, 546 SE2d 707 (2001).

Joint and several liability

Virginia imposes joint and several liability on joint tortfeasors. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-443. Thus, any joint tortfeasor against the decision is liable to the plaintiff for the entire verdict, regardless of the tortfeasor's degree or percentage of the debt. For example, in a hospital setting, if the attending doctor and nurse are negligent, then each can be held responsible for the patient the whole injury, even if some of the injury was caused by the negligence of others.

Vicarious liability

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, hospitals in Virginia are representative for the negligence of the employees but not that of independent contractors. McDonald v. Hampton School for Nurses, 254 Va. 79, 486 SE2d 299 (1997). The question of whether a doctor as an employee is a matter of fact, not to determine if the hospital calls him one, but by the factors of selection and engagement, payment of compensation, power of dismissal, and (above all) to check the doctor's work. A doctor of the exercise of professional judgments in the performance of professional activity is a factor, but not the only factor in deciding whether the hospital has the power to control his work. It is also important for the Authority, the hospital is liable for the act by a doctor on the theory of negligent credentialing. Stottlemyer v. Ghramm, 2001 Va. Cir. LEXIS 501 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 13, 2001) (confirmed in 2004 Va. LEXIS 99 (2004). In other words, a hospital is legally responsible for the granting of hospital admission and treatment privileges to a full doctor.

Expert Testimony

Apart from rare instances of shared knowledge and experience of lay jurors, expert testimony is necessary to the standard of care, a deviation from the norm, and the immediate cause of the injury. Perdieu v. Blackstone Family Practice Center, Inc., 264 Va. 408, 568 SE2d 703 (2002). As an expert witness on the standard of care of a witness need expert knowledge of the standards of the defendant's specialty and have an active clinical practice in either the defendant's specialty or a related field of medicine, within one year after the date of the alleged act or omission. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.20.

Damage Caps

Virginia sets a cap (limit) for damages of any kind in medical malpractice cases. For claims arising from acts or omissions prior to 1 August 1999, the CAP claims $ 1 million. For acts or omissions on or after 1 August 1999, and before 1 July 2000, the cap is $ 1.5 million. The CAP is increasing by $ 50,000 each 1st July. Two of the last increase $ 75,000 in early 2007, the CAP damages up to $ 2 million for acts or omissions on or after 1 July 2008. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.15. The Virginia Supreme Court has twice as this legislation and noted that it is not against the U.S. or Virginia constitutions. Pulliam v. Coastal Emergency Services, Inc., 257 Va. 1, 509 SE2d 307 (1999); Etheridge v. Medical Center Hospitals, 237 Va. 87, 376 SE2d 525 (1989).

A comparison with a defendant reduced the maximum liability of the other, because the borders of the CAP total amount recoverable for a violation of the patient, regardless of the number of theories or defendants. FairfaxHospital System v. Nevitt, 249 Va. 591, 457 SE2d 10 (1995). Including punitive damages. Bulala v. Boyd, 239 Va. 218, 389 SE2d 670 (1990). In the cases before 28 March 1994, when the definition of "provider" has been published in Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.1, a professional medical society, the uncapped liability. Schwartz v. Brownlee, 253 Va. 159, 482 SE2d 827 (1997).

Virginia limits punitive damages to $ 350,000. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-38.1. This hat is also committed to working with the Constitution by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wackenhut Applied Technologies Center, Inc. v. Sygnetron Protection Systems, Inc., 979 F.2d 980 (4. Cir. 1992).

Statutory Cap on attorneys' fees

There is no Virginia statute setting a limit on attorneys' fees in medical malpractice actions.

Periodic Payments

Regular payments or structured settlements are allowed, but not required in Virginia. An agreement on the settlement of the dispute on behalf of a disabled person, including the situation in which the plaintiff is a small (under 18 years), regular payments must be made by the court and through a bond or insurance. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-424.

Collateral Source Rule

Virginia recognizes the collateral source rule, under which the applicant the receipt of collateral payments (health insurance, paid leave of absence from work, etc.) does not reduce his recovery. This protection is legally responsible for lost revenue (Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-35), but the courts follow the rule for all damages in tort cases. Schickling v. Aspinall, 235 Va. 472, 369 SE2d 172 (1988).

Pre-Decision Interest

In Advanced Marine Enterprises v. PRC, Inc., 256 Va. 106, 501 SE2d 148 (1998), that was no wrongdoing in the Virginia Supreme Court reversed an award of pre-decision on interest rates unsettled part of the damage claim " "In general, the damages are not allowed unliquidated damages in dispute between the parties. "" That should cover most medical malpractice claims. However, the decision also notes that Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-382 leaves the date from which interest should run to the sound discretion of the court. In Pulliam v. Coastal Emergency Services, Inc., 257 Va. 1, 509 SE2d 307 (1999), the court reversed an award of pre-decision interest because they exceed the damage cap, but does not comment on whether such interest should be were awarded at all. In cases where the interest before the decision is right, that's six percent. Va. Code Ann. § 6.1-330.54.

Birth injury claims

Virginia has no general patient compensation fund for all medical liability claims. But the Birth-Related Neurological Injury Act (Va. Code Ann. § § 38.2-5000 to 38.2-5021), includes children who suffer permanent, disabling injury of the brain or spinal cord, caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury during of work, delivery, or resuscitation. These non-fault program is the exclusive remedy for such children and their parents against participating doctors and hospitals, which have an annual evaluation. Va. Code Ann. § § 38.2-5001 and 38.2-5002. A claim filed under this statute proceeds in an adversarial fashion and Virginia Attorney General, the Fund against child mortality benefit.

If the claim is to be compensable, the fund for medical expenses as well as the half life of the average weekly wage after the Virginia child age eighteen. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-5009. Many hospitals and doctors choose not to participate. In the cases before 1 April 2000, a participating physician professional Corporation may be sued, even in cases that would otherwise only by the Fund. Jan Paul Fruiterman, MD & Associates v. Waziri, 259 Va. 540, 525 SE2d 552 (2000). Although the legislature this gap is closed immediately by expanding the definition of "participating physician" in Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-5001, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to apply the amendment retroactively. Berner v. Mills, 265 Va. 408, 579 SE2d 159 (2003).

Exemptions

Virginia has waived sovereign immunity in tort cases, with significant limitations. No applicant may be more than 100,000 U.S. Dollar or the limits of insurance, whichever is higher. In medical negligence cases, the immunity will most likely be considered if a claim against the Medical College of Virginia and the University of Virginia Health System. For example, sovereign immunity was to protect the hospital administrators as well as surgical interns and residents at the University of Virginia Hospital. Lawhorne v. Harlan, 214 Va. 405, 200 SE2d 569 (1973), possibly for other reasons, First Virginia Bank v. Baker, 225 Va. 72, 301 SE2d 8 (1983), Hall v. Roberts, 548 F. Supp. 498 (D. W. Va. 1982). This immunity may relate to other doctors by the State, depending on the degree of control over them, Lohr v. Larsen, 246 Va. 81, 431 SE2d 642, (1993), but not to independent contractors. Sachno v. Atkinson, 261 Va. 278, 541 SE2d 902 (2001). Virginia has not waived sovereign immunity for local units of government. The municipalities are immune for negligence in the exercise of governmental functions, including the operation of a hospital. Edwards v. Portsmouth, 237 Va. 167, 375 SE2d 747 (1989) (dictum).

A charitable institution is not among the beneficiaries for the negligent acts of its agents if due care was exercised in the selection and retention. Mann v. Sentara Hospitals, Inc., 59 Va. Cir. 433, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 363 (2002) (discussing application of the doctrine in a medical faculty foundation). However, charitable immunity has been provided by hospitals, unless a hospital makes exclusively charitable medical services, or if the patient is an express agreement that all medical services are on a nonprofit basis. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-38.

Medical Review Panel

The Virginia medical liability law provides a system of medical malpractice review panels to assess the validity of medical malpractice claims. At the request of either party, the Supreme Court of Virginia appoints a panel to review the claim, consisting of two doctors, two lawyers and a non-voting judge as chairman. Va. Code Ann. § § 8.01-581.2 and 8.01-581.3. The Panel determines whether the evidence for the conclusion that the provider is not in accordance with the relevant standard of care and whether this disturbance caused around the injury. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.7. The results of the panel are not binding and the applicant has the option of filing an appeal after the panel delivered its decision. However, an opinion of the medical review panel is admissible as evidence in a subsequent action. Both parties have the right members, with the exception of the chairman, as a witness. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.8.

Arbitration Convention

Mediation is a process in which potential litigants can resolve their disputes without the civil courts. In most cases, arbitration, the parties agree to resolve their differences to simple, after the event occurs and the claim arises. However, the parties concerned may also agree, in advance of treatment to binding arbitration of all claims, so long as the patient has the opportunity to rescind the contract within 60 days after cessation of treatment. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.12.

T. Daniel Frith, III is an attorney with Frith Law Firm in Roanoke, Virginia. It focuses on the medical malpractice, nursing home abuse, nursing home neglect, lead paint poisoning, and business torts.

You can complete his profile http://www.frithlawfirm.com/frith.htm and the company is on the homepage http://www.frithlawfirm.com