In the case against Radiology Associates, a patient claimed that the defendants were negligent when they performed and interpreted numerous radiological studies from December 2002 to October 2005.  The patient claims that during this time, she showed symptoms that were consistent with a brain tumor located in the trigeminal nerve.

The Richmond Circuit Court did not accept the argument that the “continuous treatment rule” applies to discrete radiologic studies.  Based on the court’s ruling, there was basically no “assumption of ongoing treatment” in the patient’s case.

Although the court probably correctly interpreted the Virginia law, this law is outdated and antiquated.  It is unfortunate that this patient, who was suffering from a tumor during the entire time she relied on the radiologist’s reports, cannot pursue justice.  This type of case should not happen in this day and age.