A ‘case by case’ test is based upon a reasonable foreseeability that litigation could arise considering the factors of the case.” (Id. ) Bright-Line Rule Under the bright-line rule, also known as the “Thomas Organ rule”: [A]ny rule or statement made by or to a party’s agent (other than to an attorney acting in the role of counselor), which has not been requested by nor prepared for an attorney nor which otherwise reflects the employment of an attorney’s legal expertise[,] must be conclusively presumed to have been made in the ordinary course of business. Lopez v. Woolever, 62 Va. Cir. 198, 201 (Fairfax Cnty. 2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Thomas Organ Co. v. Jadranska Slobodna Providba, 54 F.R.D. 367, 372 (N.D. Ill. 1972)); cf. McKinnon v. Doman, 72 Va. Cir. 547, 547 (Norfolk 2007) (<HOLDING>). Defendants argue that the claims adjuster
holding that the elements of a claim under  3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added holding that the 180day statutory limit in the iad is tolled starting from the time that a defendant is not represented by counsel until new counsel is either appointed or retained when the defendant has not waived his right to counsel because during this period a defendant is unable to stand trial in accordance with the iad citation omitted holding that denial of request for continuance to allow retained counsel to prepare for trial did not deny defendant effective assistance of counsel when defendant had waited more than two months to retain an attorney courtappointed counsel appeared competent and defendants motion failed to state when retained counsel would be ready holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that a statement is not prepared in anticipation of litigation unless either the defendant had retained counsel or plaintiffs counsel had notified the defendant or his insurer of his retention before the statement was made emphasis added