In a significant legal turn of events, an appellant’s battle against a major corporation has been reignited due to procedural errors in the court system. Agustin Perez filed a complaint against Laboratory Corporation of America (Labcorp) in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County on December 30, 2025, after his medical malpractice case was dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal stemmed from Perez’s failure to appear at a scheduled term day, which he argues was due to incorrect address notification by the court.
Perez initially brought his medical malpractice claim against Labcorp in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach. However, in 2021, Labcorp successfully moved to transfer the venue to Fairfax County. The trial court scheduled a term day hearing for February 26, 2024, but sent notices using outdated address information from an unrelated case instead of the current details provided by Perez’s counsel. As a result, Perez’s attorney did not receive notice and failed to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice without Perez’s knowledge or presence.
Upon discovering this oversight months later in July 2024, Perez promptly moved to have the dismissal order set aside and his case reinstated. He argued that dismissing an actively litigated case due to an administrative error constituted a denial of due process and that he had no opportunity to be heard on the matter. Despite these arguments, the trial court maintained its decision citing jurisdictional limitations and criticized Perez’s counsel for not updating their address.
Perez appealed this decision, contending that the dismissal order was void ab initio because it violated his constitutional right to due process—namely reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. The appellate court reviewed whether proper legal procedures were followed and concluded that they were not. It found that sending notice to an incorrect address from an unrelated decade-old case was unreasonable and not calculated to ensure receipt by Perez’s counsel.
The appellate judges highlighted that such procedural missteps could not form a lawful basis for dismissing cases with prejudice as per Virginia law and established precedents like Collins v. Shepherd. Therefore, they determined that the original dismissal order was void ab initio—a complete nullity—and reversed it.
This ruling underscores critical procedural safeguards within judicial processes ensuring parties’ rights are protected through adequate notice mechanisms before any binding decrees affecting their rights can be passed.
Representing Agustin Perez is William Wirt Brock IV alongside Edwin S. Booth from Carmichael Ellis & Brock PLLC and Booth Law PLLC while Michael W. Robinson with Taylor S. Chapman from Venable LLP represents Labcorp. The case was presided over by Judge Junius P. Fulton III under Case ID Record No. 1795-24-4.
Source: 1795244_Perez_v_Laboratory_Corporation_of_America_Opinion_Virginia_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
