Failure-to-Refer Claim Fails On Appeal: Plaintiff's Verdict Reversed And Final Judgment Entered For Physician

The Court of Appeals of Virginia issued a published decision on February 10, 2026, reversing a $1.5 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice case against Loudoun Eye Care, P.C. and Dr. Gitanjali Baveja. The Court not only reversed the judgment but entered final judgment in our clients' favor. The case arose from allegations that Loudoun Eye Care failed to timely refer a patient to a retinal specialist following cataract surgery, which the plaintiff claimed resulted in permanent vision loss.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with our central argument: the plaintiff's case failed as a matter of law because he did not present qualified expert testimony establishing the standard of care applicable to a retinal specialist upon referral. Although the plaintiff relied on testimony from a general ophthalmologist, that expert conceded he was not a retinal specialist and lacked the specialized training, experience, and diagnostic expertise required in that subspecialty. Relying on Supreme Court of Virginia precedent, including Dixon v. Sublett, the Court held that in failure-to-refer cases, a plaintiff must present expert testimony not only about the alleged tortfeasor's conduct, but also about what the receiving specialist would have done upon timely referral and how that care would have altered the outcome. Without that evidence, causation cannot be established.

This decision is significant for healthcare providers defending referral-based malpractice claims because the Court clarified that speculation about what a specialist “would have done” is insufficient; plaintiff's expert testimony must also  be grounded in the actual standard of care of the physician to whom the referral allegedly should have been made. In other words, plaintiff's expert must not only establish what the specialist would have done and how it would have changed the patient's outcome, but they must also establish that what the specialist would have done was consistent with the standard of care. By successfully advancing this argument, our team secured a complete reversal and final judgment for our clients, reinforcing an important evidentiary safeguard for medical professionals litigating complex causation issues in Virginia.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.