Michael J. Cadigan Jr.

On Tuesday, December 9, 2025, Pennsylvania State Representative Bryan Cutler of House District 100 proposed a bill that is intended to “provide measured and meaningful reform to Pennsylvania’s medical liability statutes.” House Bill 2088, in addition to its Senate Companion, SB 340, proposes to amend the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (Mcare) Act. Acting together, the proposed bills seek to reshape the outset of medical professional liability actions, providing for definitions and additional expert qualifications, and increasing transparency on how claims of medical liability are reviewed on their merit

As the law currently stands, 23 Pa. Code Rule 1042.3 promulgates Pennsylvania’s Certificate of Merit requirement and states within at least 60 days of filing a complaint, the plaintiff must file a document verifying that a defending licensed professional deviated from the requisite standard of care with respect to the plaintiff, and that they have appropriate support for that proposition. When filing the Certificate of Merit, a plaintiff is not required to identify the expert providing support for their case. Most often, counsel for a plaintiff files a certification that an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm. The requirements of the law were originally designed to deter unsupported claims before they could cause financial and reputational harm to providers.

Additional requirements regarding who may qualify to sign a plaintiff’s Certificate of Merit are also spelled out in Section 512 of the Pennsylvania Mcare Act. Currently, a provider may support a Certificate of Merit if they possess sufficient education, training, knowledge and experience to provide credible, competent testimony and have an unrestricted license in any state, including the District of Columbia. The provider may also support the Certificate of Merit so long as they practice in the same (or a substantially similar) specialty as the defendant doctor, with the limitation that they cannot have retired in excess of the past five years from active practice or teaching in the same, or a substantially similar, specialty as the defendant. House Bill 2088 seeks to reinforce these requirements and proposes to add stricter qualifications for experts who may support a Certificate of Merit.

Under the proposed bill, only providers who hold an unrestricted Pennsylvania medical license and actively practice or teach in the same (or substantially similar) specialty as the defendant may support a Certificate of Merit. Additionally, the proposed version of the bill removes the language allowing for the supporting provider to have returned within the past five years from active practice or teaching. Any provider supporting a Certificate of Merit would now have to maintain an active license in Pennsylvania and be engaged in practice of the same or a substantially similar specialty as the defendant doctor. The largest change in the proposed bill requires a plaintiff to file the contact information and curriculum vitae of the physician supporting the Certificate of Merit.

Supporters of the new bill frame it as a necessary refinement, whereas critics may argue it raises barriers to an already complex area of practice. Representative Cutler says these measures seek to reinforce public trust in the fairness, rigor, and efficiency of Pennsylvania’s medical liability system, and that the benefits of the proposed bill are four-fold:

• Reduce frivolous lawsuits by requiring claims to be supported by credible, licensed professionals;
• Protect health care providers from reputational harm and rising malpractice insurance costs, which can ultimately drive up the cost of care;
• Enhance expert witness integrity by requiring experts to be licensed in Pennsylvania, actively practicing or teaching, and board-certified in the relevant specialty; and
• Limit judicial waivers for expert qualifications, ensuring consistent application of standards.

Whether House Bill 2088 and/or Senate Bill 340 ultimately pass in their current forms remains to be seen. What is clear is that practitioners on both sides should closely track these measures, as their adoption could significantly impact expert-vetting and procedural practice.