Quigley v. McClellan CA4/1
214 Cal. App. 4th 1276
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Dr. McClellan conducted prepurchase exams on Poncho and Syrus, concluding both were suitable for their intended hunter-jumper use, leading Quigley to purchase Poncho.
- Poncho had a long history of neck (cervical facets) arthritis and prior injections, and later developed additional lameness issues.
- During leasing, trainers requested Poncho's medical history; McClellan discussed but did not provide a full history to the trainers.
- The prepurchase report noted low heels, left hind lameness, kissing spines, and a left stifle spur, but McClellan still deemed Poncho suitable for use.
- After purchase, Poncho exhibited front leg lameness; further testing revealed an elbow bone cyst and other conditions treated with injections, ultimately making him unsound for riding.
- In 2010 Quigley learned of Poncho’s prior medical issues; she testified she would not have purchased Poncho had she known them during the prepurchase examination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exists a recognized standard of care for prepurchase exams? | Heidmann identified standard. | No standard was proven. | No evidence of a recognized standard of care; reversal warranted. |
| Did Dr. McClellan breach disclosure of Poncho's medical history? | Significant abnormalities should have been disclosed. | Not established as a standard of care issue. | No substantial evidence of standard of care; reversal on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Prida, 75 Cal.App.4th 1417 (Cal.App.1999) (standard of care requires expert testimony and community-based practice)
- Landeros v. Flood, 17 Cal.3d 399 (Cal.1986) (expert testimony necessary for medical standard of care)
- Kuhn v. Department of General Services, 22 Cal.App.4th 1627 (Cal.App.1994) (substantial evidence review; not all contrary theories prove negligence)
- Lawless v. Calaway, 24 Cal.2d 81 (Cal.1944) (standard of care tied to what a reasonably skilled professional would do)
- DiMartino v. City of Orinda, 80 Cal.App.4th 329 (Cal.App.2000) (substantial evidence requires reasoning from the record, not mere speculation)
- Estate of Teed, 112 Cal.App.2d 638 (Cal.App.1952) (evidence must support essential legal elements)