SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Virginia Case Summary

Robert Thornhill v. Commonwealth Eye Center, P.C., et al.
Court of Appeals of Virginia
Record No. 0635-23-4

Decided: February 17, 2026

A trial court may not impose summary judgment as a sanction and dismiss a party’s case based solely on procedural grounds arising from a violation of a uniform pretrial scheduling order, absent a compelling justification.

Background

Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging medical malpractice after undergoing an intraocular lens surgery. The trial court entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order (“UPSO”) setting forth various deadlines for all parties leading up to trial. Specifically, the UPSO set the deadline for the parties’ witness and exhibit lists on March 6, 2023. On March 15, 2023, the trial judge contacted the parties about their witness and exhibit lists, noting that Defendant timely filed theirs, but Plaintiff had failed to file his. The trial judge made a statement to the parties inquiring about Defendant’s expectation to object to Plaintiff’s failure to file, suggesting that the parties read the exact language of the UPSO, and urging counsel to review specific cases regarding this issue. Plaintiff informed the judge that he exchanged his list with Defendant on March 1, 2023, but inadvertently did not file it with the court. Plaintiff subsequently filed his list with the court the following day.

Taking the trial judge’s recommendations, Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s witness and exhibit list along with a motion for summary judgment. Defendant argued that Plaintiff could not be permitted to introduce any evidence due to his failure to file a witness and exhibit list. Defendant further argued that Plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof without presenting evidence, entitling Defendant to summary judgment. The trial court sustained Defendant’s objections and entered summary judgment against Plaintiff. The trial court cited the exact language of the UPSO, ruling that even though Defendant received Plaintiff’s list, it was not “filed” with the court in accordance with the UPSO. Thus, Plaintiff was not entitled to any exceptions, and the trial court entered a final order dismissing his case. Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the Virginia Court of Appeals, where a panel of judges upheld the trial court’s ruling. Plaintiff then petitioned the Virginia Court of Appeals for an en banc review.

Holding

The en banc Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s case.

The en banc Viriginia Court of Appeals held that a UPSO stems from Rule 1:18 but is subject to the provisions of Virginia Code § 8.01-4, which, in part, states that docket-management rules must not have the effect of abridging substantive rights of persons before the court. According to the Court, neither Rule 1:18 nor its enforcement § 8.01-4 should result in denying a litigant the opportunity to establish their case based solely on procedural grounds in the absence of compelling justification. Further, although a trial court can impose sanctions for violations of a UPSO, excluding Plaintiff’s witnesses and exhibits was not a merited sanction and was misaligned with the reality of the circumstances. Finally, the Court found that the trial court failed to give proper weight to the other factors described in the UPSO when considering whether to admit Plaintiff’s evidence.

For those reasons, the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Questions about this case can be directed to Amanda Finney at (571) 470-0394 or afinney@tthlaw.com.