A. Every complaint, counter claim, or third party claim in a medical malpractice action, at the time the plaintiff first requests service of process upon a defendant, or requests a defendant to accept service of process, shall be deemed a certification that the plaintiff has obtained from an expert witness whom the plaintiff reasonably believes would qualify as an expert witness pursuant to subsection A of § 8.01-581.20 a written opinion signed by the expert witness that states:
BASED UPON A REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS, THE DEFENDANT FOR WHOM SERVICE OF PROCESS HAS BEEN REQUESTED DEVIATED FROM THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE AND THE DEVIATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURIES CLAIMED.
No further statement or opinion from the expert witness shall be required for the purposes of this section. The plaintiff may have separate certifications for standard of care and causation. Each defendant who is the subject of an expert witness's certification shall be identified in the certification.
B. This certification is not necessary if the plaintiff, in good faith, alleges a medical malpractice action that asserts a theory of liability where expert testimony is unnecessary because the alleged act of negligence clearly lies within the range of the jury's common knowledge and experience.
C. The certifying expert shall not be required to be an expert witness expected to testify at trial nor shall any defendant be entitled to discover the identity or qualifications of the certifying expert or the nature of the certifying expert's opinions. Should the certifying expert be identified as an expert expected to testify at trial, the opinions and bases therefor shall be discoverable pursuant to Rule 4:1 of the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia with the exception of the expert's status as a certifying expert.
D. Within 21 days of an answer being filed by a defendant upon whom service of process has been requested, the plaintiff shall certify to such defendant that the plaintiff had obtained the necessary certifying expert opinion at the time service was requested or affirms that the plaintiff did not need to obtain a certifying expert witness opinion by including a statement that reads: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS COMPLIED WITH § 8.01-20.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. The court, upon good cause shown, may conduct an in camera review of the certifying expert opinion obtained by the plaintiff as the court may deem appropriate. If the plaintiff did not obtain a necessary certifying expert opinion at the time the plaintiff requested service of process on a defendant as required under this section, the court shall impose sanctions according to the provisions of § 8.01-271.1 and may dismiss the case with prejudice.
2005, cc. 649, 692; 2007, c. 489; 2013, cc. 65, 610; 2025, c. 359.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases (
17 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case:
Parker v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 594 (E.D. Va. 2007).
Parker v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 594 (E.D. Va. 2007).
· cites it 18× “For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be granted on the grounds that the undisputed facts demonstrate (i) that plaintiff did not comply with Virginia’s expert certification requirement, Va.Code § 8.01-20.1, and (ii) that plaintiff cannot…”
Summers v. Syptak, 801 S.E.2d 422 (Va. 2017).
· cites it 10× “Syptak filed a request for an expert witness certification under Code § 8.01-20.1, contending that the plaintiff was required to obtain an expert who could testify that the defendant had "deviated from the applicable standard of care and the deviation was a proximate cause of…”
Sowers v. United States, 141 F. Supp. 3d 471 (E.D. Va. 2015).
· cites it 21× “” Va.Code § 8.01-20.1. By its plain terms, the VMMA certification 'requirement provides that the complaint itself functions as a certification that a plaintiff has obtained the requisite expert opinion.”
James v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 3d 392 (E.D. Va. 2015).
· cites it 6× “Va. Code § 8.01-20.1. The exception to the certificate of merit requirement applies only in rare circumstances, such as when a foreign object is left in a patient’s body.”
Blankenship v. United States, 111 F. Supp. 3d 745 (W.D. Va. 2015).
· cites it 6× “a written opinion signed by the expert witness that, based on a reasonable understanding of the facts, the defendant for whom service of process has been requested deviated from the applicable standard of care and the deviation was a proximate cause of the injuries claimed.”
Lents v. Vetter, 80 Va. Cir. 268 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 15× “In a Medical Malpractice Case If a Defendant Files an Answer Before the Plaintiff Obtains Service of Process, the Plaintiff Is Not Required To Have an Expert Certification The expert witness certification requirement in Va. Code § 8.01-20.1 only applies when “the plaintiff…”
Nance v. Bon Secours-St. Mary's Hosp., 70 Va. Cir. 52 (Henrico Cir. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 13× “HICKS This matter came before the Court on September 9,2005, for a hearing on the issues of service of process under Rule 3:3 and the applicability of Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-20.1 . The Court, on the relevant issues, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law to…”
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 177 F. Supp. 3d 943 (E.D. Va. 2016).
· cites it 3× “See Va. Code § 8.01-20.1. The assertions concerning negligence are not subsumed by Virginia’s Medical Malpractice law.”
Rundle v. Carter, 91 Va. Cir. 177 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 8× “Defendants ’Demurrer Va. Code § 8.01-20.1 requires plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits to obtain, prior to serving defendants, expert certification stating that based upon a reasonable understanding of the facts, the defendants deviated from the applicable standard of care…”
Dunn v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (E.D. Va. 2020).
· cites it 18× “” Va. Code § 8.01-20.1. The plaintiff does not need to file the certification with the court, but the defendant may request that the written confirmation the plaintiff obtained be provided “within 10 business days after receipt of such request.”
Bowman v. Concepcion (Va. 2012).
· cites it 27× “Concepcion, the court nonetheless should find that she exercised due diligence in obtaining service of process once the expert opinion required by Code § 8.01-20.1 had been obtained. 2 Following oral argument by the parties, the circuit court issued a memorandum opinion dated…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-20.1(A) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-20.1(B) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-20.1(D) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.