HERO Act Grants Military Families 10 Years to Sue Government for Medical Malpractice

The Healthcare Equality and Rights for Our Heroes Act (HERO Act) takes direct aim at a long-standing issue in military healthcare: the inability of active service members to sue the government for medical malpractice. Essentially, this bill creates a new legal pathway, allowing members of the uniformed services—including reservists on active duty—to sue the United States for injury or death caused by negligent care at a military treatment facility. This is a massive shift, establishing accountability where previously a legal loophole often protected the government from liability in these specific cases. Any lawsuit filed under this new section will be the exclusive remedy, meaning the U.S. government becomes the sole defendant, protecting the individual military health provider from being sued personally for the same incident.

Finally, a Path to Accountability

For years, service members injured by negligence in military hospitals were often left without recourse, relying solely on VA benefits which are separate from compensation for malpractice. The HERO Act changes this by explicitly stating that any damages awarded in a successful lawsuit cannot be reduced by the amount of veterans’ benefits the claimant receives. Think of a young soldier who suffers a career-ending injury due to a botched surgery at a base hospital. Before this bill, their options for compensation were limited. Now, they can pursue a lawsuit for damages, and that award won't chip away at their existing disability or other VA support. This separation is key for ensuring true financial recovery.

The 10-Year Clock and Real-World Limits

One of the most practical provisions for busy people is the statute of limitations: claimants have 10 years from the date they discovered, or should have discovered, the injury and its cause to file a lawsuit. This recognizes that medical malpractice injuries—like nerve damage or misdiagnosed conditions—can take years to fully manifest or be properly identified. However, the bill does draw a line on where this applies. The malpractice must occur at a “covered military medical treatment facility,” specifically excluding battalion aid stations or medical facilities located in an area of armed conflict or combatant activities. This geographical limit means that a service member injured by negligence in a combat zone clinic still won't have this specific avenue for legal recourse, creating a potential disparity based on deployment location.

The Trade-Off for Providers

The bill protects individual military doctors and dentists by making the lawsuit against the U.S. the “exclusive remedy.” This means the government absorbs all the liability. For the healthcare providers, this is a huge relief; they can focus on their jobs without the constant threat of a personal lawsuit hanging over their heads, which could potentially reduce defensive medicine. For the government, however, this means taking on the full financial risk and cost of litigation. The Attorney General will need to report back to Congress every two years on the number of claims filed, so we will eventually get a clear picture of the fiscal impact this new legal right creates.