Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 2002–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bryan v. Burtgreen2 sentences2008In Julie's wrongful birth case, as in any medical malpractice action, one of the elements that a plaintiff must prove is "a causal connection between the breach of duty and any claimed injury or damage." Naccash v. Burger, 223 Va. 406 , 414, 290 S.E.2d 825 , 829 (1982); see also Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997) ("[A] plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury."); Bro 2008In Julie's wrongful birth case, as in any medical malpractice action, one of the elements that a plaintiff must prove is "a causal connection between the breach of duty and any claimed injury or damage." Naccash v. Burger, 223 Va. 406 , 414, 290 S.E.2d 825 , 829 (1982); see also Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997) ("[A] plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury."); Bro | 3 | 4 |
Brown v. Koulizakisgreen2 sentences2025“In medical malpractice cases, as in other negligence actions, the plaintiff must establish not only that the defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and was therefore negligent, he must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury[.]” Dixon v. Sublett, 295 Va. 60, 67 (2018) (quoting Brown v. Koulizakis, 229 Va. 524, 532 (1985)). 2018"In medical malpractice cases, as in other negligence actions, the plaintiff must establish not only that the defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and was therefore negligent, he must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Brown v. Koulizakis , 229 Va. 524 , 532, 331 S.E.2d 440 , 446 (1985). | 2 | 4 |
King v. Sowersgreen2 sentences2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause 2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause | 1 | 2 |
Dixon v. Sublettgreen1 sentence2025“In medical malpractice cases, as in other negligence actions, the plaintiff must establish not only that the defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and was therefore negligent, he must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury[.]” Dixon v. Sublett, 295 Va. 60, 67 (2018) (quoting Brown v. Koulizakis, 229 Va. 524, 532 (1985)). | 1 | 1 |
Howell v. Sobhangreen2 sentences2023“In a medical malpractice case, as in other types of negligence actions, the plaintiff must prove not only that the defendant violated the applicable standard of care and was therefore negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligent acts were a proximate cause of the injury.” Howell v. Sobhan, 278 Va. 278, 283 (2009). 2023“The proximate cause of an event is that act or omission which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the event, and without which that event would not have occurred.” Id. at 283-84 (quoting Doherty v. Aleck, 273 Va. 421, 428 (2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Doherty v. Aleckgreen1 sentence2023“The proximate cause of an event is that act or omission which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the event, and without which that event would not have occurred.” Id. at 283-84 (quoting Doherty v. Aleck, 273 Va. 421, 428 (2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Hadeed v. Medic-24, Ltd.green2 sentences2008Although the issue of proximate causation is normally a question of fact for the jury to determine, a court may decide the issue "when reasonable persons could not differ." Jenkins v. Payne, 251 Va. 122 , 128, 465 S.E.2d 795 , 799 (1996); accord Hadeed v. Medic-24, Ltd., 237 Va. 277 , 285, 377 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (1989). 2008Although the issue of proximate causation is normally a question of fact for the jury to determine, a court may decide the issue "when reasonable persons could not differ." Jenkins v. Payne, 251 Va. 122 , 128, 465 S.E.2d 795 , 799 (1996); accord Hadeed v. Medic-24, Ltd., 237 Va. 277 , 285, 377 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Raines v. Lutzgreen2 sentences2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause 2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause | 1 | 1 |
Perdieu v. Blackstone Family Practice Center, Inc.green2 sentences2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause 2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause | 1 | 1 |
Spruill v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006To be admissible, such medical expert testimony must be rendered to a "reasonable degree of medical probability." Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69 , 78, 606 S.E.2d 819 , 825 (2005); see also Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475 , 479, 271 S.E.2d 419 , 421 (1980) ("[a] medical opinion based on a `possibility' is irrelevant, purely speculative and, hence inadmissible"). 2006To be admissible, such medical expert testimony must be rendered to a "reasonable degree of medical probability." Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69 , 78, 606 S.E.2d 819 , 825 (2005); see also Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475 , 479, 271 S.E.2d 419 , 421 (1980) ("[a] medical opinion based on a `possibility' is irrelevant, purely speculative and, hence inadmissible"). | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. Marrow by Marrowgreen2 sentences2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause 2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Naccash v. Burger
green
2 sentences2008In Julie's wrongful birth case, as in any medical malpractice action, one of the elements that a plaintiff must prove is "a causal connection between the breach of duty and any claimed injury or damage." Naccash v. Burger, 223 Va. 406 , 414, 290 S.E.2d 825 , 829 (1982); see also Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997) ("[A] plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury."); Bro 2008In Julie's wrongful birth case, as in any medical malpractice action, one of the elements that a plaintiff must prove is "a causal connection between the breach of duty and any claimed injury or damage." Naccash v. Burger, 223 Va. 406 , 414, 290 S.E.2d 825 , 829 (1982); see also Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997) ("[A] plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury."); Bro | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jenkins v. Payne
green
2 sentences2008Although the issue of proximate causation is normally a question of fact for the jury to determine, a court may decide the issue "when reasonable persons could not differ." Jenkins v. Payne, 251 Va. 122 , 128, 465 S.E.2d 795 , 799 (1996); accord Hadeed v. Medic-24, Ltd., 237 Va. 277 , 285, 377 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (1989). 2008Although the issue of proximate causation is normally a question of fact for the jury to determine, a court may decide the issue "when reasonable persons could not differ." Jenkins v. Payne, 251 Va. 122 , 128, 465 S.E.2d 795 , 799 (1996); accord Hadeed v. Medic-24, Ltd., 237 Va. 277 , 285, 377 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (1989). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pettus v. Gottfried
green
2 sentences2006To be admissible, such medical expert testimony must be rendered to a "reasonable degree of medical probability." Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69 , 78, 606 S.E.2d 819 , 825 (2005); see also Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475 , 479, 271 S.E.2d 419 , 421 (1980) ("[a] medical opinion based on a `possibility' is irrelevant, purely speculative and, hence inadmissible"). 2006To be admissible, such medical expert testimony must be rendered to a "reasonable degree of medical probability." Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69 , 78, 606 S.E.2d 819 , 825 (2005); see also Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475 , 479, 271 S.E.2d 419 , 421 (1980) ("[a] medical opinion based on a `possibility' is irrelevant, purely speculative and, hence inadmissible"). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.