HERO Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 6730
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-12-16: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-03T09:05:27Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of H.R. 6730: Healthcare Equality and Rights for Our Heroes Act (HERO Act)
Purpose
This bill aims to enable members of the uniformed services (including active-duty and reserve personnel) and their families to file lawsuits against the United States for personal injuries or deaths resulting from negligent or wrongful medical, dental, or related healthcare provided at certain military facilities. It seeks to provide a legal remedy for improper care that was previously restricted under existing law.
Key Provisions
- Repeal of Prior Restriction: Eliminates Section 2733a of title 10, United States Code, which previously limited claims for medical malpractice in military settings.
- New Claims Process Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): Adds a new Section 2681 to chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, allowing claims for damages due to negligent acts or omissions in healthcare (including clinical studies) at "covered military medical treatment facilities." These facilities are military hospitals or clinics (as defined under 10 U.S.C. § 1073d) but exclude frontline aid stations in combat zones.
- Claims must involve care provided by government employees or under government direction.
- This is the exclusive legal remedy; individuals cannot sue the employee directly (protecting federal workers from personal liability).
- No Reduction of Awards: Compensation cannot be offset by benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI).
- Extended Time Limit for Filing: Claims must be filed within 10 years of discovering (or reasonably able to discover) the injury and its cause. For any pending administrative claims under the repealed section as of the bill's enactment, the clock starts on the enactment date.
- Special Rules:
- Ignores certain FTCA exceptions (subsections (j) and (k) of 28 U.S.C. § 2680) that might otherwise bar claims related to discretionary functions or combat activities.
- For incidents outside the U.S., the law of the claimant's home state applies instead of foreign law.
- Reporting Requirement: The U.S. Attorney General must report to Congress every two years (starting two years after enactment) on the number of claims filed under this section.
- Definitions: Clarifies terms like "active service," "Armed Forces," "member of the uniformed services" (includes reserves during active duty), and excludes combat-zone facilities.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Overturns Prior Barriers: Repeals a specific military claims limitation (10 U.S.C. § 2733a) and creates an exception to the broader "Feres doctrine" (a judicial rule from Feres v. United States, 1950, which generally prevents service members from suing the government for injuries "incident to service"). This bill carves out military medical malpractice at non-combat facilities, allowing FTCA lawsuits where they were previously unavailable or severely restricted.
- Expands FTCA Scope: Integrates military healthcare claims directly into the FTCA framework, shifting from administrative-only processes to full civil court access, with procedural adjustments like the longer discovery-based statute of limitations (versus the standard two-year FTCA limit).
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Defense (DoD) and military healthcare providers may face increased scrutiny and litigation, potentially leading to higher costs for settlements or judgments handled by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Biennial reporting to Congress could prompt ongoing oversight of military medical quality.
- On Citizens (Service Members and Families): Provides a direct path to compensation for medical negligence, improving access to justice for injured or deceased personnel without reducing awards due to other benefits. This could encourage better healthcare standards in military facilities to avoid lawsuits.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though the use of U.S. state law for overseas incidents simplifies claims for personnel stationed abroad, avoiding reliance on foreign legal systems.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Primary Beneficiaries: Active-duty and reserve members of the Armed Forces/uniformed services, their families, and estates seeking redress for medical injuries or deaths.
- Government Entities: DoD (military healthcare providers and facilities), DOJ (handles claims and reporting), and VA (benefits unaffected but coordinated).
- Others: Congress (receives reports for policy review); federal employees in military medicine (protected from personal suits).
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Waives sovereign immunity (the government's protection from lawsuits) in a targeted way for military medical care, potentially setting a precedent for further exceptions to the Feres doctrine. The 10-year discovery rule extends standard FTCA timelines, which could increase viable claims but raise questions about administrative burdens.
- Constitutional: Aligns with due process by providing remedies for negligence, but may face challenges if seen as undermining military discipline (a Feres rationale). No direct constitutional conflicts noted.
- Political: Supports veterans' and service members' rights, sponsored by bipartisan representatives, potentially appealing across party lines. Could influence military recruitment/retention by signaling accountability in healthcare, though it might strain defense budgets amid rising litigation.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (11)
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9], Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2], Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2], Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1], Rep. Rutherford, John H. [R-FL-5], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Recent Actions
- 2025-12-16: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-12-16: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2025-12-16: Introduced in House
- 2025-12-16: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Healthcare Equality and Rights for Our Heroes Act — issued 2025-12-16 — PDF (5 pages)