Virginia Assembly Passes Bill Requiring Malpractice Data Disclosure, Signaling Possible Cap Changes

Legislation aims to provide lawmakers with more information to consider future adjustments to the state's medical malpractice damages cap.

Apr. 6, 2026 at 1:00pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Virginia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 536, which requires insurers, healthcare systems, and hospitals to disclose details about medical malpractice premiums, claims, and liability costs by September 2025. While the current $2.7 million cap on malpractice damages remains unchanged for now, the bill's passage signals lawmakers' growing interest in revisiting the cap, which has not significantly increased since 1976.

Why it matters

Virginia's medical malpractice cap has been a longstanding point of contention between the medical and legal communities. With new legislators unfamiliar with the 2012 agreement between the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, there is mounting pressure to reevaluate the cap's adequacy in keeping pace with rising healthcare costs. The data disclosure required by SB 536 aims to provide lawmakers with more information to consider future adjustments to the cap.

The details

Senate Bill 536, initially filed to address the treatment of prejudgment interest under the cap, was amended in the House to propose raising the cap from $2.7 million to $6 million. This amendment was ultimately rejected, with the final bill instead requiring insurers, healthcare systems, and hospitals to report detailed malpractice data to the General Assembly by September 2025. While the current cap remains in place, the passage of SB 536 signals lawmakers' intent to revisit the issue in the 2027 legislative session.

  • Senate Bill 536 was passed by the Virginia General Assembly in April 2026.
  • The bill requires insurers, healthcare systems, and hospitals to disclose malpractice data by September 1, 2025.

The players

Sen. Mark Obenshain

The Republican senator from Rockingham County who originally patrons the bill to address prejudgment interest under the medical malpractice cap.

Scott Johnson

A partner at Hancock Daniel in Richmond and counsel and lobbyist for the Medical Society of Virginia, which opposed the proposed cap increase.

Elliott Buckner

An attorney with Cantor Grana Buckner Bucci who lobbied on behalf of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, which supported the bill.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger

The governor of Virginia who has yet to take action on Senate Bill 536 as of the article's publication.

Les Bowers

A partner at the Charlottesville law firm MichieHamlett, who commented on the potential impact of future changes to the medical malpractice cap.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Agreements between third parties are really nice and everything, but they certainly don't bind members of the General Assembly. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, is around who was around in 1976 when the cap was adopted.”

— Sen. Mark Obenshain

“In round numbers, half of the physician and physician assistant members said that if this went through, they'd have to reduce the services they are providing to their current patients, if not close completely.”

— Scott Johnson, Counsel and Lobbyist, Medical Society of Virginia

“That deal went for, in my opinion, too long a period of time, and it did not keep pace at all with the actual increase in the cost of medical goods and services over that same period of time. Harm caused now is a lot more expensive to deal with than harm caused then.”

— Elliott Buckner, Attorney, Virginia Trial Lawyers Association

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.