Plaintiffs’ attorneys and legal scholars say the reintroduced HERO Act could open federal courts to claims long barred under the Feres Doctrine, a 1950 Supreme Court ruling that has kept most active-duty medical negligence cases out of civil litigation for more than 70 years.
The HERO Act
The HERO Act was reintroduced in December 2025 mainly because lawmakers and veterans say the 2020 reform didn’t actually fix the problem — and new cases plus claim outcomes exposed gaps in the current system. They argued that decisions happen behind closed doors and compensation is difficult to obtain due to:
- lack of transparency
- bureaucratic delays
- high denial rates under the administrative system
Push for Reform
The push for reform by Reps. Richard Hudson and Darrell Issa traces back to former Green Beret Richard Stayskal, whose case exposed the limits of existing law.
In 2017, Stayskal was cleared for dive school by military doctors who reportedly misdiagnosed a mass on his lung as pneumonia. By the time he was permitted to see a civilian specialist six months later, he was diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer. Because of the Feres Doctrine, Stayskal was legally barred from suing the military professionals responsible for the misdiagnosis. (In 2004 while serving in Iraq, he was shot by a sniper, and a bullet lodged in his lung. Stayskal was awarded the Purple Heart in 2005.)
“The law that gave hope to my friend Rich Stayskal and so many military families has been tied up and watered down by bureaucracy,” said Rep. Hudson. “If preventable medical harm at a military hospital costs a servicemember their health or their life, they should have the same right as any other American to take their case to court. The HERO Act makes that clear in federal law so our heroes and their families can finally seek full and fair compensation.”
“The HERO Act is about more than opening an avenue to the courts. It’s about recognizing that service members who are victimized by medical malpractice in a DOD facility are deserving of the opportunities to pursue the kind of justice that is currently denied to them,” said Rep. Issa. “Congress has previously worked to correct this obvious wrong within our system, but it isn’t fixed yet. This time, we’re going to set this right.”
How Med Mal Claims Are Currently Resolved
Because military malpractice claims are currently resolved through an internal administrative system rather than civil trials, legal analysts say allowing cases into federal court would introduce discovery, expert testimony and potential trial proceedings — a shift that could significantly increase scrutiny and liability exposure.
READ MORE VETERANS MALPRACTICE LEGAL NEWS
When the Department of Defense rules implemented the 2020 malpractice process, it announced that claims are handled administratively, not through civil litigation: “Because Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to consider these claims, DoD is issuing this rule to provide uniform standards and procedures for considering and processing these actions.” This meant:
- No jury trials
- Limited discovery
- Decisions made internally by DoD claims officials
And in May 2024, the DoD’s final rule amended regulations for medical malpractice claims by service members, limiting offsets for government compensation to economic damages only.
Whether the HERO Act ultimately passes remains uncertain, but attorneys on both sides say the proposal signals growing congressional willingness to revisit long-standing limits on military liability. If enacted, the measure could shift medical negligence disputes involving service members from an internal compensation system into federal courtrooms for the first time, potentially reshaping how malpractice claims against military healthcare providers are investigated, litigated and resolved.
Source link
