Dr. McClellan's motion for nonsuit was denied, as were his postjudgment motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial. A jury returned a special verdict finding that Dr. McClellan was negligent in performing the prepurchase examination of Poncho, but not negligent in his examination of Syrus. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict awarding Quigley $46,000 in damages. Dr. McClellan now appeals the judgment and the order denying his motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and nonsuit. He asks that we order judgment be entered in his favor, since there was no substantial evidence of an applicable standard of care, or that he failed to adhere to that standard in performing the prepurchase examination of Poncho. We conclude there was no evidence of an applicable standard of care, and the judgment therefore must be reversed.
1. Poncho's Medical History
Poncho is a performance horse who competes in hunter jumper competitions. In January 2006, he began to manifest physical signs of a left hind lameness that was interfering with his ability to perform in competition. He was then taken to Dr. McClellan to be evaluated for the cause of his lameness. Dr. McClellan performed a bone scan, radiographs, and an x-ray to pinpoint the source of Poncho's lameness. The test results showed that Poncho was suffering from a condition in the cervical facets (vertebrae) of his neck. Dr. McClellan treated Poncho's condition by administering injections directly into Poncho's neck. This treatment alleviated Poncho's lameness and performance issues.
Judge(s): Richard D. Huffman
Jurisdiction: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District
Related Categories: Expert Witness , Torts
|Trial Court Judge(s)|
|Court of Appeals Judge(s)|
|Appellant Lawyer(s)||Appellant Law Firm(s)|
|Lisa Brown||Wallace Brown & Schwartz|
|George Wallace||Wallace Brown & Schwartz|
|Appellee Lawyer(s)||Appellee Law Firm(s)|
|Robert Newman||Law Office of Robert Newman|