119-HR-6730 Journalist Public Summary

Headline Summary

Lets active-duty service members take medical malpractice cases from the Pentagon’s internal process to federal court for care at military hospitals, with combat-zone care excluded. [1]

What It Does

• Repeals the Defense Department’s administrative malpractice program (10 U.S.C. § 2733a) and instead allows suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) via a new 28 U.S.C. § 2681. [1] [2]
• Covers negligence in medical, dental, or related care at “covered” military medical treatment facilities; explicitly excludes battalion aid stations and facilities in areas of armed conflict or combatant activities. [1]
• Sets a discovery-based filing window up to 10 years. [1]
• Prevents the government from reducing a court award because the service member received VA benefits or Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. [1]
• Overrides two FTCA exceptions for these cases: the “combatant activities” and “foreign country” bars (28 U.S.C. § 2680(j) and (k)); for overseas care, applies the law of the claimant’s home state instead of foreign law. [1] [3]
• Requires the Attorney General to report to Congress every two years on claims filed. [1]

Why it matters: Today, active-duty members can’t sue over injuries “incident to service” because of the Feres doctrine; since 2020 they’ve been limited to an internal DoD claims process that has approved only about 3% of cases to date. Supporters argue court access would make accountability fairer and more consistent with civilian standards. [4] [5] [6]

Who’s For It

• Sponsors: Reps. Darrell Issa (R‑CA), Richard Hudson (R‑NC), and Jimmy Panetta (D‑CA) say troops should have the same right as civilians and military families to take malpractice claims to federal court. [7]
• Advocates critical of the Feres doctrine: Some jurists and veterans’ advocates have called Feres unfair; for example, Justice Thomas recently urged the Supreme Court to revisit it, underscoring momentum for legislative fixes. [8]
• Past versions: A similar “HERO Act” was introduced in the prior Congress, signaling ongoing bipartisan interest in this approach.

Who’s Against It

• Defenders of the Feres doctrine argue that allowing lawsuits could undermine military discipline, invite second-guessing of military medical judgments, and expose the government to uneven state-law standards and higher costs. [5]
• Process‑first skeptics note the Pentagon has been revising its internal system—raising non‑economic damage caps and ending some offsets—to address fairness concerns without opening federal courts to active-duty claims. [9] [10]

What’s Next

Status: Introduced on December 16, 2025, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. Next steps would be committee hearings and markups before any House floor vote, then consideration in the Senate. [1]