§ 8.01-50.1.Certification of expert witness opinion at time of service of process.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 5. Death by Wrongful Act · Last amended 2025 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-50.1 deems every wrongful death complaint against a health care provider a certification that the plaintiff already obtained a qualified expert’s written opinion on breach and causation before requesting service of process, subject to a common-knowledge exception, limited discovery protection for the certifying expert, and a follow-up certification and sanctions regime.
A.Every complaint, counter claim, or third party claim in any action pursuant to § 8.01-50 for wrongful death against a health care provider, 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 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 in his wrongful death action a medical malpractice 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 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- 50.1 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.
Plain-English Summary
Section 8.01-50.1 borrows the certifying-expert requirement used in ordinary medical malpractice suits and applies it to wrongful death claims against health care providers. Under subsection A, the moment a plaintiff first requests service of process on a defendant — or asks that defendant to accept service — the complaint, counterclaim, or third-party claim is deemed a certification that the plaintiff already obtained a signed written opinion from an expert witness reasonably believed to qualify under § 8.01-581.20. That opinion must state that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care and that the deviation proximately caused the claimed injuries. No further statement is required, a plaintiff may split the certification between standard-of-care and causation experts, and each certified defendant must be identified.
Subsection B excuses the certification where the plaintiff, in good faith, alleges a theory of liability that does not need expert testimony because the alleged negligence falls within the common knowledge and experience of a jury.
Subsection C protects the certifying expert from becoming a discovery target: that expert need not be the one who testifies at trial, and no defendant can discover the certifying expert’s identity, qualifications, or opinions — unless the certifying expert is later named as a trial witness, in which case the opinions and their bases become discoverable under Rule 4:1, apart from the fact that the expert also served as the certifying expert.
Subsection D adds a follow-up step: within 21 days after a defendant answers, the plaintiff must certify to that defendant, using the statute’s prescribed language, that the necessary opinion existed at the time service was requested, or that none was needed. A court may, for good cause, review the certifying opinion in camera. If the plaintiff failed to obtain the required opinion when the statute called for one, the court must impose sanctions under § 8.01-271.1 and may dismiss the case with prejudice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does requesting service of process certify in a Virginia wrongful death medical malpractice case?
It certifies that the plaintiff already obtained a signed written opinion from a qualifying expert stating that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care and that the deviation proximately caused the injuries claimed — obtained before service was first requested on that defendant.
When is the expert certification not required?
Subsection B excuses it when the plaintiff, in good faith, pursues a theory of liability where the alleged negligence is within the common knowledge and experience of a jury, so expert testimony is not needed to prove the claim.
Can a defendant find out who the certifying expert is or what that expert said?
Generally no. Subsection C shields the certifying expert’s identity, qualifications, and opinions from discovery, unless that same expert is later identified as a trial witness — at which point the opinions and their bases become discoverable under Rule 4:1, though the expert’s role as certifying expert remains protected.
What happens if a plaintiff never obtained the required certifying opinion?
Under subsection D, the court must impose sanctions under § 8.01-271.1 and may dismiss the case with prejudice if the plaintiff did not have the necessary certifying expert opinion at the time service of process was requested.
What must a plaintiff do after a defendant files an answer?
Within 21 days of the answer, the plaintiff must certify to that defendant, using the statute’s required language, either that the necessary certifying opinion was obtained at the time service was requested or that no such opinion was needed.
Amendment History
2005, cc. 649, 692; 2007, c. 489; 2013, cc. 65, 610; 2025, c. 359.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:virginia wrongful death certifying expertmedical malpractice expert certification virginia8.01-50.1 virginia codeexpert opinion wrongful death lawsuit virginiacertification of merit wrongful death virginia