Christine Caluyo v. DaVita, Inc.

Filing

AMENDING ORDER/OPINION filed [999357674] amending and superseding Unpublished per curiam Opinion [999349725-2] dated 05/05/2014. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB. Copies to all parties. [13-2059]

Appeal: 13-2059

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/16/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

Filed:

May 16, 2014

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2059
(1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB)

CHRISTINE CALUYO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVITA INC.; DAVITA RX LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed May 5, 2014, as
follows:
On page 2, line 5 of text -- the word “statue” is
corrected to read “statute.”
For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

Appeal: 13-2059

Doc: 25

Filed: 05/16/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 25

Filed: 05/16/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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 statute 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