{"formats":[{"name":"JSON","format":"json","url":"\/downloads\/2025\/code-json\/8.01-581.20.json"},{"name":"Plain Text","format":"text","url":"\/downloads\/2025\/code-text\/8.01-581.20.txt"},{"name":"XML","format":"xml","url":"\/downloads\/2025\/code-xml\/8.01-581.20.xml"},{"name":"HTML","format":"html","url":"\/downloads\/2025\/code-html\/8.01-581.20.html"}],"law_id":75087,"edition_id":1,"section_id":75087,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.20","catch_line":"Standard of care in proceeding before medical malpractice review panel; expert testimony; determination of standard in action for damages","history":"1979, c. 325; 1980, c. 164; 1989, cc. 146, 729; 1992, c. 240; 2003, c. 251; 2008, cc. 125, 169, 205; 2015, cc. 310, 361; 2020, c. 945; 2022, c. 509.","full_text":"A\n\nIn any proceeding before a medical malpractice review panel or in any action against a physician, clinical psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed professional counselor, podiatrist, dentist, nurse, hospital, or other health care provider to recover damages alleged to have been caused by medical malpractice where the acts or omissions so complained of are alleged to have occurred in this Commonwealth, the standard of care by which the acts or omissions are to be judged shall be that degree of skill and diligence practiced by a reasonably prudent practitioner in the field of practice or specialty in this Commonwealth and the testimony of an expert witness, otherwise qualified, as to such standard of care, shall be admitted; provided, however, that the standard of care in the locality or in similar localities in which the alleged act or omission occurred shall be applied if any party shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the health care services and health care facilities available in the locality and the customary practices in such locality or similar localities give rise to a standard of care which is more appropriate than a statewide standard. Any health care provider who is licensed to practice in Virginia shall be presumed to know the statewide standard of care in the specialty or field of practice in which he is qualified and certified. This presumption shall also apply to any person who, but for the lack of a Virginia license, would be defined as a health care provider under this chapter, provided that such person is licensed in some other state of the United States and meets the educational and examination requirements for licensure in Virginia. An expert witness who is familiar with the statewide standard of care shall not have his testimony excluded on the ground that he does not practice in this Commonwealth. A witness shall be qualified to testify as an expert on the standard of care if he demonstrates expert knowledge of the standards of the defendant’s specialty and of what conduct conforms or fails to conform to those standards and if he has had active clinical practice in either the defendant’s specialty or a related field of medicine within one year of the date of the alleged act or omission forming the basis of the action.\n\t\t\tThe provisions of this section shall apply to expert witnesses testifying on the standard of care as it relates to professional services in nursing homes.B\n\nIn any action for damages resulting from medical malpractice, any issue as to the standard of care to be applied shall be determined by the jury, or the court trying the case without a jury.C\n\nIn any action described in this section, each party may designate, identify, or call to testify at trial no more than two expert witnesses per medical discipline on any issue presented. The court may permit a party, for good cause shown, to designate, identify, or call to testify at trial additional expert witnesses. The number of treating health care providers who may serve as expert witnesses pursuant to § 8.01-399 shall not be limited pursuant to this subsection, except for good cause shown. If the court permits a party to designate, identify, or call additional experts, the court may order that party to pay all costs incurred in the discovery of such additional experts. For good cause shown, pursuant to the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia, the court may limit the number of expert witnesses other than those identified in this subsection whom a party may designate, identify, or call to testify at trial.","order_by":null,"text":{"0":{"id":269699,"text":"In any proceeding before a medical malpractice review panel or in any action against a physician, clinical psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed professional counselor, podiatrist, dentist, nurse, hospital, or other health care provider to recover damages alleged to have been caused by medical malpractice where the acts or omissions so complained of are alleged to have occurred in this Commonwealth, the standard of care by which the acts or omissions are to be judged shall be that degree of skill and diligence practiced by a reasonably prudent practitioner in the field of practice or specialty in this Commonwealth and the testimony of an expert witness, otherwise qualified, as to such standard of care, shall be admitted; provided, however, that the standard of care in the locality or in similar localities in which the alleged act or omission occurred shall be applied if any party shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the health care services and health care facilities available in the locality and the customary practices in such locality or similar localities give rise to a standard of care which is more appropriate than a statewide standard. Any health care provider who is licensed to practice in Virginia shall be presumed to know the statewide standard of care in the specialty or field of practice in which he is qualified and certified. This presumption shall also apply to any person who, but for the lack of a Virginia license, would be defined as a health care provider under this chapter, provided that such person is licensed in some other state of the United States and meets the educational and examination requirements for licensure in Virginia. An expert witness who is familiar with the statewide standard of care shall not have his testimony excluded on the ground that he does not practice in this Commonwealth. A witness shall be qualified to testify as an expert on the standard of care if he demonstrates expert knowledge of the standards of the defendant’s specialty and of what conduct conforms or fails to conform to those standards and if he has had active clinical practice in either the defendant’s specialty or a related field of medicine within one year of the date of the alleged act or omission forming the basis of the action.\n\t\t\tThe provisions of this section shall apply to expert witnesses testifying on the standard of care as it relates to professional services in nursing homes.","type":"section","prefixes":["A"],"prefix":"A","entire_prefix":"A","prefix_anchor":"A","level":1,"next_prefix":"B"},"1":{"id":269700,"text":"In any action for damages resulting from medical malpractice, any issue as to the standard of care to be applied shall be determined by the jury, or the court trying the case without a jury.","type":"section","prefixes":["B"],"prefix":"B","entire_prefix":"B","prefix_anchor":"B","level":1,"prior_prefix":"A","next_prefix":"C"},"2":{"id":269701,"text":"In any action described in this section, each party may designate, identify, or call to testify at trial no more than two expert witnesses per medical discipline on any issue presented. The court may permit a party, for good cause shown, to designate, identify, or call to testify at trial additional expert witnesses. The number of treating health care providers who may serve as expert witnesses pursuant to § 8.01-399 shall not be limited pursuant to this subsection, except for good cause shown. If the court permits a party to designate, identify, or call additional experts, the court may order that party to pay all costs incurred in the discovery of such additional experts. For good cause shown, pursuant to the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia, the court may limit the number of expert witnesses other than those identified in this subsection whom a party may designate, identify, or call to testify at trial.","type":"section","prefixes":["C"],"prefix":"C","entire_prefix":"C","prefix_anchor":"C","level":1,"prior_prefix":"B"}},"ancestry":[{"id":14388,"edition_id":1,"name":"Miscellaneous Provisions","identifier":"2","label":"article","depth":3,"order_by":1,"parent_id":14387,"metadata":{},"date_created":"2026-06-26 03:47:58","date_modified":"2026-06-26 03:47:58","permalink":{"id":278979,"object_type":"structure","relational_id":14388,"identifier":"2","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2","url":"\/8.01\/21.1\/2\/","edition_id":1,"permalink":0,"preferred":1}},{"id":14387,"edition_id":1,"name":"Medical Malpractice","identifier":"21.1","label":"chapter","depth":2,"order_by":1,"parent_id":12747,"metadata":{},"date_created":"2026-06-26 03:47:58","date_modified":"2026-06-26 03:47:58","permalink":{"id":278895,"object_type":"structure","relational_id":14387,"identifier":"21.1","token":"8.01\/21.1","url":"\/8.01\/21.1\/","edition_id":1,"permalink":0,"preferred":1}},{"id":12747,"edition_id":1,"name":"Civil Remedies and Procedure","identifier":"8.01","label":"title","depth":1,"order_by":1,"parent_id":null,"metadata":{},"date_created":"2026-06-26 03:43:51","date_modified":"2026-06-26 03:43:51","permalink":{"id":277029,"object_type":"structure","relational_id":12747,"identifier":"8.01","token":"8.01","url":"\/8.01\/","edition_id":1,"permalink":0,"preferred":1}}],"structure_contents":[{"id":59392,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.13","catch_line":"Civil immunity for certain health professionals and health profession students serving as members of certain entities","url":"\/8.01-581.13\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.13","metadata":false},{"id":60855,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.14","catch_line":"Repealed","url":"\/8.01-581.14\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.14","metadata":false},{"id":66555,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.15","catch_line":"Limitation on recovery in certain medical malpractice actions","url":"\/8.01-581.15\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.15","metadata":false},{"id":55726,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.16","catch_line":"Civil immunity for members of or consultants to certain boards or committees","url":"\/8.01-581.16\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.16","metadata":false},{"id":75226,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.17","catch_line":"Privileged communications of certain committees and entities","url":"\/8.01-581.17\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.17","metadata":false},{"id":57108,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.18","catch_line":"Delivery of results of laboratory tests and other examinations not authorized by physician","url":"\/8.01-581.18\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.18","metadata":false},{"id":57097,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.18:1","catch_line":"Immunity of physicians for laboratory results and examinations","url":"\/8.01-581.18_1\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.18_1","metadata":false},{"id":71346,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.19","catch_line":"Civil immunity for physicians, psychologists, podiatrists, optometrists, veterinarians, nursing home administrators, and certified emergency medical services providers while members of certain committees","url":"\/8.01-581.19\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.19","metadata":false},{"id":59744,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.19:1","catch_line":"Civil immunity for persons providing information to certain committees","url":"\/8.01-581.19_1\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.19_1","metadata":false},{"id":75087,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.20","catch_line":"Standard of care in proceeding before medical malpractice review panel; expert testimony; determination of standard in action for damages","url":"\/8.01-581.20\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.20","metadata":false},{"id":57136,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.20:1","catch_line":"Admissibility of expressions of sympathy","url":"\/8.01-581.20_1\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.20_1","metadata":false}],"previous_section":{"id":59744,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.19:1","catch_line":"Civil immunity for persons providing information to certain committees","url":"\/8.01-581.19_1\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.19_1","metadata":false},"next_section":{"id":57136,"structure_id":14388,"section_number":"8.01-581.20:1","catch_line":"Admissibility of expressions of sympathy","url":"\/8.01-581.20_1\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.20_1","metadata":false},"metadata":false,"official_url":"https:\/\/law.lis.virginia.gov\/vacode\/8.01-581.20\/","history_text":"

This law was first created in 1979. The record of its establishment is cataloged in chapter 325 of that year\u2019s edition of \u201cActs of Assembly,\u201d the annual state publication listing all changes made to the Code of Virginia in that year. Unfortunately, the 1979 \u201cActs\u201d aren\u2019t available online. It has been modified 8 times. Those modifications are cataloged by \u201cThe Acts of Assembly,\u201d a state publication, by year and chapter. Those modifications that can be read on the General Assembly\u2019s website will be linked accordingly. Those modifications are as follows: in 1980, chapter 164; in 1989, chapters 146 and 729; in 1992, chapter 240; in 2003, chapter 251<\/a>; in 2008, chapters 125<\/a>, 169<\/a>, and 205<\/a>; in 2015, chapters 310<\/a> and 361<\/a>; in 2020, chapter 945<\/a>; in 2022, chapter 509<\/a>.<\/p>","references":[{"id":80303,"section_number":"16.1-83.1","catch_line":"Certification of expert witness opinion at time of service of process","order_by":null,"url":"\/16.1-83.1\/"},{"id":73301,"section_number":"32.1-111.3","catch_line":"Statewide Emergency Medical Services Plan; Trauma Triage Plan; Stroke Triage Plan","order_by":null,"url":"\/32.1-111.3\/"},{"id":76872,"section_number":"32.1-122.03:1","catch_line":"Statewide Telehealth Plan","order_by":null,"url":"\/32.1-122.03_1\/"},{"id":84153,"section_number":"38.2-3412.1","catch_line":"Coverage for mental health and substance use disorders","order_by":null,"url":"\/38.2-3412.1\/"},{"id":76674,"section_number":"54.1-2711","catch_line":"Practice of dentistry","order_by":null,"url":"\/54.1-2711\/"},{"id":61450,"section_number":"54.1-2962.2","catch_line":"Physician-patient relationship; effect of certain emergency department treatment","order_by":null,"url":"\/54.1-2962.2\/"},{"id":83098,"section_number":"54.1-2990","catch_line":"Medically unnecessary health care not required; procedure when physician refuses to comply with an advance directive or a designated person's health care decision; mercy killing or euthanasia prohibited","order_by":null,"url":"\/54.1-2990\/"},{"id":63450,"section_number":"8.01-20.1","catch_line":"Certification of expert witness opinion at time of service of process","order_by":null,"url":"\/8.01-20.1\/"},{"id":60390,"section_number":"8.01-50.1","catch_line":"Certification of expert witness opinion at time of service of process","order_by":null,"url":"\/8.01-50.1\/"}],"refers_to":[{"id":82405,"section_number":"8.01-399","catch_line":"Communications between physicians and patients (Supreme Court Rule 2:505 derived from this section)","order_by":null,"url":"\/8.01-399\/"}],"permalink":{"id":279017,"object_type":"law","relational_id":75087,"identifier":"8.01-581.20","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.20","url":"\/8.01-581.20\/","edition_id":1,"permalink":0,"preferred":1},"url":"\/8.01-581.20\/","token":"8.01\/21.1\/2\/8.01-581.20","dublin_core":{"Title":"Standard of care in proceeding before medical malpractice review panel; expert testimony; determination of standard in action for damages","Type":"Text","Format":"text\/html","Identifier":"\u00a7 8.01-581.20","Relation":"Code of Virginia"},"html":"\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

A.<\/span> In any proceeding before a medical malpractice<\/span> review panel<\/span> or in any action<\/span> against a physician<\/span>, clinical psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed professional counselor, podiatrist, dentist, nurse, hospital<\/span>, or other health care provider<\/span> to recover damages<\/span> alleged to have been caused by medical malpractice<\/span> where the acts or omissions so complained of are alleged to have occurred in this Commonwealth, the standard of care by which the acts or omissions are to be judged shall be that degree of skill and diligence practiced by a reasonably prudent practitioner in the field of practice or specialty in this Commonwealth and the testimony<\/span> of an expert witness<\/span>, otherwise qualified, as to such standard of care, shall be admitted; provided, however, that the standard of care in the locality or in similar localities in which the alleged act or omission occurred shall be applied if any party<\/span> shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence<\/span> that the health care services and health care facilities available in the locality and the customary practices in such locality or similar localities give rise to a standard of care which is more appropriate than a statewide standard. Any health care provider<\/span> who is licensed to practice in Virginia shall be presumed to know the statewide standard of care in the specialty or field of practice in which he is qualified and certified. This presumption<\/span> shall also apply to any person<\/span> who, but for the lack of a Virginia license, would be defined as a health care provider<\/span> under this chapter, provided that such person<\/span> is licensed in some other state of the United States and meets the educational and examination requirements for licensure in Virginia. An expert witness<\/span> who is familiar with the statewide standard of care shall not have his testimony<\/span> excluded on the ground that he does not practice in this Commonwealth. A witness shall be qualified to testify as an expert on the standard of care if he demonstrates expert knowledge of the standards of the defendant<\/span>’s specialty and of what conduct conforms or fails to conform to those standards and if he has had active clinical practice in either the defendant<\/span>’s specialty or a related field of medicine within one year of the date of the alleged act or omission forming the basis of the action<\/span>.\n\t\t\tThe provisions of this section shall apply to expert witnesses testifying on the standard of care as it relates to professional services in nursing homes<\/span>. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

B.<\/span> In any action<\/span> for damages<\/span> resulting from medical malpractice<\/span>, any issue<\/span> as to the standard of care to be applied shall be determined by the jury<\/span>, or the court<\/span> trying the case without a jury<\/span>. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

C.<\/span> In any action<\/span> described in this section, each party<\/span> may designate, identify, or call to testify at trial<\/span> no more than two expert witnesses per medical discipline on any issue<\/span> presented. The court<\/span> may permit a party<\/span>, for good cause shown, to designate, identify, or call to testify at trial<\/span> additional expert witnesses. The number of treating health care providers<\/span> who may serve as expert witnesses pursuant to § 8.01-399<\/a> shall not be limited pursuant to this subsection, except for good cause shown. If the court<\/span> permits a party<\/span> to designate, identify, or call additional experts, the court<\/span> may order<\/span> that party<\/span> to pay all costs incurred in the discovery<\/span> of such additional experts. For good cause shown, pursuant to the Rules of Supreme Court<\/span> of Virginia, the court<\/span> may limit the number of expert witnesses other than those identified in this subsection whom a party<\/span> may designate, identify, or call to testify at trial<\/span>. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>","plain_text":" CODE OF VIRGINIA\n\nSTANDARD OF CARE IN PROCEEDING BEFORE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REVIEW PANEL; EXPERT\nTESTIMONY; DETERMINATION OF STANDARD IN ACTION FOR DAMAGES (\u00a7 8.01-581.20)\n\nA. In any proceeding before a medical malpractice review panel or in any action\nagainst a physician, clinical psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed\nprofessional counselor, podiatrist, dentist, nurse, hospital, or other health\ncare provider to recover damages alleged to have been caused by medical\nmalpractice where the acts or omissions so complained of are alleged to have\noccurred in this Commonwealth, the standard of care by which the acts or\nomissions are to be judged shall be that degree of skill and diligence practiced\nby a reasonably prudent practitioner in the field of practice or specialty in\nthis Commonwealth and the testimony of an expert witness, otherwise qualified,\nas to such standard of care, shall be admitted; provided, however, that the\nstandard of care in the locality or in similar localities in which the alleged\nact or omission occurred shall be applied if any party shall prove by a\npreponderance of the evidence that the health care services and health care\nfacilities available in the locality and the customary practices in such\nlocality or similar localities give rise to a standard of care which is more\nappropriate than a statewide standard. Any health care provider who is licensed\nto practice in Virginia shall be presumed to know the statewide standard of care\nin the specialty or field of practice in which he is qualified and certified.\nThis presumption shall also apply to any person who, but for the lack of a\nVirginia license, would be defined as a health care provider under this chapter,\nprovided that such person is licensed in some other state of the United States\nand meets the educational and examination requirements for licensure in\nVirginia. An expert witness who is familiar with the statewide standard of care\nshall not have his testimony excluded on the ground that he does not practice in\nthis Commonwealth. A witness shall be qualified to testify as an expert on the\nstandard of care if he demonstrates expert knowledge of the standards of the\ndefendant’s specialty and of what conduct conforms or fails to conform to\nthose standards and if he has had active clinical practice in either the\ndefendant’s specialty or a related field of medicine within one year of\nthe date of the alleged act or omission forming the basis of the action.\n\t\t\tThe provisions of this section shall apply to expert witnesses testifying on\nthe standard of care as it relates to professional services in nursing homes.\n\nB. In any action for damages resulting from medical malpractice, any issue as to\nthe standard of care to be applied shall be determined by the jury, or the court\ntrying the case without a jury.\n\nC. In any action described in this section, each party may designate, identify,\nor call to testify at trial no more than two expert witnesses per medical\ndiscipline on any issue presented. The court may permit a party, for good cause\nshown, to designate, identify, or call to testify at trial additional expert\nwitnesses. The number of treating health care providers who may serve as expert\nwitnesses pursuant to § 8.01-399 shall not be limited pursuant to this\nsubsection, except for good cause shown. If the court permits a party to\ndesignate, identify, or call additional experts, the court may order that party\nto pay all costs incurred in the discovery of such additional experts. For good\ncause shown, pursuant to the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia, the court may\nlimit the number of expert witnesses other than those identified in this\nsubsection whom a party may designate, identify, or call to testify at trial.\n\nHISTORY: 1979, c. 325; 1980, c. 164; 1989, cc. 146, 729; 1992, c. 240; 2003, c.\n251; 2008, cc. 125, 169, 205; 2015, cc. 310, 361; 2020, c. 945; 2022, c. 509.","edition":{"id":1,"name":"2025","slug":"2025","date_created":"2026-06-21 22:39:22","date_modified":"2026-06-21 22:39:22","current":1,"order_by":1,"last_import":null}}