Christine Caluyo v. DaVita, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999349725]. [13-2059]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-2059 Doc: 23 Filed: 05/05/2014 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2059 CHRISTINE CALUYO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVITA INC.; DAVITA RX LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Before KEENAN Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 5, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason W. Fernandez, GREENBERG & BEDERMAN, LLP, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Andrew Butz, Heather S. Deane, BONNER KIERNAN TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-2059 Doc: 23 Filed: 05/05/2014 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Christine dismissing her Caluyo civil appeals the We complaint. district have court’s reviewed order parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Although Caluyo contends that she should benefit from the continuing treatment rule to toll the statue of limitations, we reject this contention because her negligence claim does not relate to “a particular condition [that] was improperly treated and diagnosed.” Grubbs v. Rawls, 369 S.E.2d 683, 686 (Va. 1988) (quoting Fenton v. Danaceau, 255 S.E.2d 349, 350 (Va. 1979). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Caluyo v. Davita Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. July 25, 2013). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument Court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?