VIRGINIA:

 In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 

Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 20th day of April, 

2007. 

Suzanne Reifman, Personal Representative 

for the Estate of Bruce Reifman, Deceased, Appellant, 

 against Record No. 061230 

 Circuit Court No. 2004-222159 

Robert M. Gorsen, M.D., et al., Appellees. 

 Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the 

Circuit Court of Fairfax County. 

 Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and the arguments of 

counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is no reversible error 

in the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. 

 Suzanne Reifman, personal representative for the estate of 

Bruce Reifman, deceased, brought this action against Robert M. 

Gorsen, M.D., Kathleen B. French, M.D., Daniel R. Swerdlow, M.D., 

and Fairfax Radiological Consultants, P.C., to recover damages for 

medical malpractice. The plaintiff contended that each defendant 

departed from the applicable standard of care in failing to make a 

timely diagnosis of hydrocephalus,∗

 the immediate cause of the 

decedent's death. A five-day jury trial resulted in a verdict in 

favor of all defendants. The circuit court entered final judgment 

on the verdict and we awarded the plaintiff an appeal. 

 There is a single assignment of error: That the circuit court 

erred in refusing to admit into evidence Exhibit 18A, a medical 

 ∗

 The parties do not dispute that for purposes of the present 

case hydrocephalus refers to the accumulation of cerebral spinal 

fluid in the ventricles of the brain, leading to their enlargement 

and swelling. 
2

record transcribed on April 21, 2001 at Inova Alexandria Hospital, 

consisting of an addendum to a report of a magnetic resonance 

imaging scan of the decedent's brain made while he was a patient at 

that hospital (the Alexandria report). 

 The day after the Alexandria report was transcribed, the 

decedent was admitted to Inova Fairfax Hospital, where he expired on 

April 28, 2001. Dr. Gorsen had been the decedent's attending 

neurosurgeon since 1999. Personnel at the Alexandria hospital were 

aware of that relationship and sent a copy of the Alexandria report 

to Dr. Gorsen's office. Dr. Gorsen, however, was attending a 

conference in Toronto at the time and did not return to Virginia 

until April 25, 2001. He made a handwritten notation on his copy of 

the Alexandria report that he had not received it until May 2, 2001, 

after the decedent's death. 

 At trial, the plaintiff offered no evidence to refute Dr. 

Gorsen's assertion of the time he had received the Alexandria report 

and there was no evidence that any of the other defendants had ever 

seen it before the death of the decedent. The court marked the 

report Exhibit 18A for identification and gave plaintiff's counsel 

an opportunity to lay a foundation for its admission. 

 Plaintiff's counsel cross-examined Dr. Gorsen concerning the 

content of the report as well as the time of its receipt, in an 

effort to lay a foundation for its admission. Plaintiff's counsel 

was permitted to refer to it again in his closing argument to the 

jury, contending that it showed that Dr. Gorsen had timely notice of 

the decedent's condition. Nevertheless, plaintiff's counsel never 

moved the court to admit Exhibit 18A in evidence until after the 
3

evidence was closed, the parties had rested, an alternate juror had 

been excused, the court had instructed the jury, and the jury had 

retired to consider its verdict. When counsel then, for the first 

time, moved for the exhibit's admission, the court denied the 

motion, observing that if the exhibit were to be admitted, a 

limiting instruction would be necessary and it was too late to 

reopen the trial for that purpose. 

 Even if the exhibit might properly have been admitted into 

evidence, the trial court was given no timely opportunity to do so. 

A motion to admit evidence after the evidence has been closed comes 

too late. The court might, in its discretion, have permitted the 

reopening of the trial for that purpose, see Mundy v. Commonwealth, 

161 Va. 1049, 1064, 171 S.E. 691, 696 (1933); Bishop v. Webster, 154 

Va. 771, 778, 153 S.E. 832, 834 (1930), but did not abuse its 

discretion in refusing to do so, particularly in light of the 

plaintiff's abundant opportunity to make a timely motion for 

admission of the exhibit during the five days of trial. See Moore 

v. Dixie Fire Ins. Co., 19 Ga. App. 800, 806-07, 92 S.E. 302, 305 

(1917). Accordingly, the Court affirms the judgment of the circuit 

court. The appellant shall pay to the appellees thirty dollars 

damages. 

 This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall 

be certified to the said circuit court. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 Patricia L. Harrington, Clerk