Cothran v. Jauregui

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the continuing treatment rule did not extend the statute of limitations for Renee Jauregui’s medical malpractice claim against Dr. Shannon Cothran. The Court concluded that the ten-month gap between appointments constituted a substantial interruption in the physician-patient relationship and reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court’s judgment sustaining the plea in bar.

Holdings

1. The continuing treatment rule does not require proof of treatment; it requires a continuous and substantially uninterrupted course of either examination or treatment concerning a specific injury, condition, or malady.
2. The phrase "substantially uninterrupted" refers to a physician-patient relationship that is mostly, but not necessarily entirely, continuous and incorporates a reasonableness component into the continuity requirement.
3. The circuit court did not err in finding that the course of examination was substantially interrupted after the October 2018 appointment and in sustaining Dr. Cothran's plea in bar.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the continuing treatment rule requires the existence of treatment, or may apply based on a continuous course of examination alone.
2. Whether the course of examination concerning Jauregui's breast lump was substantially uninterrupted despite the approximately ten-month gap between appointments.
3. Whether the circuit court's factual finding that a substantial interruption occurred was plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.

Disposition

reversed