708 S.E.2d 834
Va.2011Background
- December 2002: Chalifoux scheduled an MRI at Radiology Associates; initial MRI read as normal.
- March 9, 2003: second MRI and head MRA interpreted as normal.
- October 22, 2005: imaging finally shows an abnormality (cavernous sinus region); radiologist Dr. Kuta notes prior exams may have shown it.
- October 12, 2007: Chalifoux files medical malpractice suit against Radiology Associates.
- Circuit Court granted Radiology Associates' statute of limitations plea, holding the treatment was episodic and not continuing
- Appeal: Chalifoux contends there was a continuous course of care; Radiology Associates argues no continuing treatment and accrual date 2004.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the continuing treatment rule toll the statute for radiology services? | Chalifoux: continuous examination/diagnosis over time. | Radiology Associates: services were episodic, not continuing care. | Yes; the rule applies, beginning Oct. 24, 2005. |
| When did the malpractice claim accrue under the continuing treatment rule? | Accrual at end of treatment period, October 24, 2005. | Accrual at the last negligent act/date, February 16, 2004. | Accrual occurred Oct. 24, 2005; suit filed Oct. 12, 2007 timely. |
| Is there a continuous and substantially uninterrupted course of examination and treatment between Chalifoux and Radiology Associates? | Six imaging studies over years with same symptoms indicate continuous care. | Radiologists acted as diagnostic consultants; no treating relationship. | Yes; a continuous and substantially uninterrupted course existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farley v. Goode, 219 Va. 969 (Va. 1979) (continual treatment rule accrual at course termination; applies to treating physician relationship)
- Grubbs v. Rawls, 235 Va. 607 (Va. 1988) (explains rationale for continuing treatment rule and need for uninterrupted treatment)
- Harris v. K & K Insurance Agency, Inc., 249 Va. 157 (Va. 1995) (context for continuing treatment analysis)
- Montgomery v. South County Radiologists, Inc., 49 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. 2001) (radiology diagnoses may constitute continuing care for same complaint)
- Baker v. Radiology Associates, P.A., 72 Ark. App. 193 (Ark. 2000) (diagnostic radiology treated as episodic; continuous course not per se)
- Grey v. Stamford Health System, Inc., 282 Conn. 745 (Conn. 2007) (routine diagnostic tests not continuing treatment; varies by context)