McCurdy

McCurdy v. Hatfield

Good Law
1947 Cal. LEXIS 184·30 Cal. 2d 492·183 P.2d 269
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 31, 1947L. A. No. 20012California1,181 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Gibson, J.

The sole question presented, on this appeal from a judgment of nonsuit, is whether plaintiff made a prima facie case of malpractice in the treatment of injuries to her arm and shoulder. She relies on the testimony of defendant doctor as to what was proper practice, and she contends that defendant negligently departed from that practice by commencing manipulative treatments at too early a date and by improperly carrying the treatments beyond the point of tolerance.

There are sharp conflicts in the evidence as to the time defendant began the manipulative treatments and as to their extent and character. According to defendant’s testimony, the manner, time and extent of the treatments were strictly in accord with what he testified was proper practice. However, in passing on the propriety of a judgment of nonsuit every favorable inference and presumption fairly arising from the evidence must be considered, and all evidence tending to sustain plaintiff’s case must be accepted as true. The evidence of the defendant in a malpractice case comes within this rule and is to be considered, together with any other evidence, in the light most favorable to plaintiff. (Lashley v. Koerber, 26…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.