News & Insights
Supreme Court of Virginia Rules Updated Accrual Statute Is Not Retroactive
Doe v. Green, Record No. 240794 (Va. Nov. 26, 2025)
The Court recently released an opinion rejecting arguments that a newer, more favorable statute of limitations could apply to claims that accrued years before the statute’s enactment.
Jane Doe filed suit in September 2021 against Joseph Robert Green, Jr., alleging assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from a sexual relationship that began in June 2005 when Doe was 14 years old and Green was 33. According to Doe’s complaint, Green regularly emphasized keeping the relationship secret, and she constantly worried about getting in trouble, her lack of control, and her parents’ potential reaction. Doe ended the relationship in September 2006 by running away to New York, returning to Virginia two months later. In 2009, after turning 18, Doe reconnected with Green via Facebook and subsequently reported the relationship to police. Green was charged with carnal knowledge of a child but was acquitted at trial after claiming the relationship didn’t begin until May 2006 when Doe was 15.
Doe alleged she continued suffering mentally and psychologically for years, experiencing anxiety, nightmares, flashbacks, sleep problems, and difficulty forming relationships. In 2021, a licensed clinical psychologist diagnosed her with PTSD resulting from her relationship with Green, prompting her to file her lawsuit.
Green filed a plea in bar arguing that Doe’s claims were time-barred under the 2005 version of Code § 8.01-249(6) (the “2005 Accrual Statute”), which was in effect when the relationship occurred. Under that version, the statute of limitations for injuries from sexual abuse began running when a victim turned 18, unless the victim did not then know of the injury and its causal connection to the abuse. If the victim lacked such knowledge at age 18, the limitations period would only begin when that information was first communicated by a licensed medical professional. Green argued that because Doe knew of her injury and its connection to the relationship before turning 18, her statute of limitations began in December 2008 (when she turned 18) and expired in December 2010 (two years later)—more than a decade before she filed suit.
Doe countered that the 2021 version of the statute (the “2021 Accrual Statute”) should apply. The 2021 version changed the accrual rule to start the limitations period “upon the later of” reaching age 18 or when the injury and causal connection is communicated by a medical professional, effectively eliminating the requirement that the victim lack knowledge at age 18. Under this version, Doe’s claim would be timely because she filed within two years of her 2021 PTSD diagnosis.
The trial court granted Green’s plea in bar, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Doe appealed to the Supreme Court, which also affirmed.
The Supreme Court applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively unless “a contrary intention is manifest and plain,” and courts will not infer retroactive intent absent express legislative manifestation. Doe asserted two bases for retroactive application. First, she argued that Code § 8.01‑1 expressly provided for retroactive application of accrual statutes. The Supreme Court, however, found that Doe had waived this argument because she brought it up for the first time in her reply brief to the Court of Appeals. Second, Doe argued that a 1995 amendment to Va. Const. Art. IV, § 14 established that accrual statutes for sexual abuse were automatically retroactive. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, noting that the amendment merely granted the General Assembly “the power to provide for” retroactive application. It allowed, but did not mandate, retroactivity.
Having determined that the 2005 Accrual Statute applied, the Supreme Court relied on the plain language of the complaint to decide that Doe’s own allegations demonstrated that she knew during the relationship with Green that it was improper and negatively affected her mental health. Doe’s 2009 decision to report the relationship to the police further demonstrated her awareness of the inappropriate relationship. Thus, her claims were time-barred.