Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-20.1

Every motion for judgment, counter claim, or third party claim in a medical malpractice action, at the time the plaintiff 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, 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. 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.

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.

Upon written request of any defendant, the plaintiff shall, within 10 business days after receipt of such request, provide the defendant with a certification form that affirms 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. 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.

Virginia has required a certificate of merit since 2005, and I don’t know of any constitutional challenges to the law since it was enacted here.  Many medical malpractice lawyers in Virginia have not been strongly opposed to the law because it is a way of validating the claim.  But, what is an injured person to do when the doctor or hospital personnel either leave out or put things into the medical records that are not true?  If the contents of the medical records keeps an injured person from getting a certificate of merit, and facts could be discovered in the legal process to show the errors in the medical records, then the law protects the health care provider from defending a legitimate claim.  Is that fair?

Almost all children dream of what it would be like to drive a car like mommy and daddy do.  It’s why they’re fascinated with cars and trucks and why manufacturers make play cars for toddlers and remote control cars.  A growing trend in this market is a vehicle that the youngster can actually maneuver himself while in the driver seat.  An ATV or All Terrain Vehicle is like a motorcycle but on four wheels (they used to have only 3, like a tricycle) and can be driven on all types of land.  No need for roads with these vehicles.  Anything from open fields, to sand dunes, to your backyard are fair game. 

However, the great risks of these vehicles to our children are constantly being proven.  According to a study published in the Houston Chronicle, 40,000 children under the age of 16 were seriously injured in ATV accidents resulting in 107 deaths in 2007 alone. 

Helmets are not enough.  Even when proper protection is worn, the vehicle itself is a menace.  One of the problems is that these vehicles are oversized.  Full sized ATVs can weigh up to 400 pounds.  When matched against a 60 pound child, the eventual winner is obvious.  Any kind of accident can be disastrous, especially when the child lands beneath the vehicle or is thrown from it.   While there are smaller vehicles that are made specifically for younger children, they too can easily outweigh a child and without many safety restraints, serious precautions need to be taken.  Virginia has a law that governs ATV use by children that basically prohibits children from using larger vehicles.  This ATV safety site has information about ATVs that might be helpful to you.

Manufacturers know about the dangers of ATVs when used by children, but most parents do not.  They look like great fun, and who wouldn’t want to let a child have great fun.  But, THEY ARE NOT TOYS. 

Parents whose child has been injured or killed on an ATV should speak to a lawyer who can give them information to help them decide whether the manufacturer or retailer can be held responsible.  Give me a call at 703-273-9500, contact me through my firm’s website, www.WRSattorneys.com, or send me an email at srohrstaff@WRSattorneys.com.  I will answer your questions for free.