The Virginia Supreme Court issued an opinion in *Cothran v. Jauregui*, a medical malpractice case that centers on complex statute of limitations issues in healthcare litigation. The decision, written by Justice Cleo E. Powell on December 30, 2025, addresses whether the continuing treatment rule applies to extend limitation periods for malpractice claims.
The case arose from a lawsuit filed by Renee Jauregui against Dr. Shannon J. Cothran, an OB/GYN, on June 30, 2021. Jauregui alleged that during multiple pregnancy-related visits between May and October 2018, she repeatedly informed Dr. Cothran about a lump she had discovered in her breast. According to the complaint, Dr. Cothran dismissed these concerns, telling Jauregui that the lump was a normal part of pregnancy and that diagnostic testing would not provide useful information.
The timeline of events proved crucial to the legal proceedings. Jauregui testified that she first brought the breast lump to Dr. Cothran's attention during a May 2018 visit. According to her testimony, Dr. Cothran examined the lump and diagnosed it as a clogged milk duct. This same diagnosis was allegedly repeated during prenatal office visits in August and September 2018.
During her postpartum appointment in October 2018, Jauregui again raised concerns about the persistent breast lump. She testified that Dr. Cothran assured her the lump would resolve on its own without intervention. However, when Jauregui returned to Dr. Cothran for a follow-up appointment specifically about the breast lump in August 2019, subsequent testing revealed that the lump was actually breast cancer.
Dr. Cothran responded to the malpractice lawsuit by filing a plea in bar, arguing that the statute of limitations barred Jauregui's claims. This procedural move set the stage for a complex legal battle over timing requirements in medical malpractice litigation.
The parties reached a significant agreement during the proceedings: they conceded that the statute of limitations would bar any claims related to appointments occurring before the August 2019 follow-up visit. This concession narrowed the legal dispute to a single critical question: whether the continuing treatment rule applied to extend the statute of limitations period to encompass Jauregui's earlier appointments with Dr. Cothran.
The continuing treatment rule is a legal doctrine that can extend statute of limitations periods when a patient maintains an ongoing treatment relationship with a healthcare provider. The rule recognizes that patients may not immediately recognize potential malpractice when they are receiving continuous care from the same physician.
To resolve the dispute, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing where both Dr. Cothran and Jauregui testified about their recollections of the 2018 appointments. Jauregui's testimony painted a picture of persistent concerns that were repeatedly dismissed, while the proceedings examined whether the doctor-patient relationship continued in a manner that would trigger the continuing treatment rule.
The case initially proceeded through the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, which ruled that the malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations. However, the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed this judgment, finding in favor of Jauregui's position. Dr. Cothran then appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, seeking to restore the trial court's original ruling.
The Virginia Supreme Court's consideration of this case highlights the complex intersection of medical malpractice law and procedural timing requirements. The outcome carries significant implications for both healthcare providers and patients in Virginia, as it clarifies when the continuing treatment rule may extend limitation periods for malpractice claims.
The case also underscores the challenges patients face when symptoms are dismissed or misdiagnosed over multiple appointments. The facts presented suggest a pattern where Jauregui's concerns were consistently minimized, ultimately resulting in a delayed cancer diagnosis.
For healthcare providers, the decision provides important guidance on how ongoing patient relationships may affect statute of limitations defenses. The ruling will likely influence how physicians and their legal counsel approach limitation period calculations in future malpractice litigation.
The Virginia Supreme Court's decision in *Cothran v. Jauregui* represents an important development in medical malpractice jurisprudence, particularly regarding the application of the continuing treatment rule. As healthcare litigation continues to evolve, this case will serve as precedent for similar disputes involving delayed diagnoses and ongoing doctor-patient relationships.
The opinion's emphasis on the specific facts and timing of medical appointments demonstrates the fact-intensive nature of continuing treatment rule analysis, requiring courts to carefully examine the nature and duration of physician-patient relationships when evaluating statute of limitations defenses.