In 2018, then 14-year-old Jake Drost—who had a pre-existing heart condition—died from cardiac arrest after participating in a 100-yard dash for his school’s Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program. Before Jake began participating, Shamus Sheridan, a licensed chiropractor, screened and cleared him for the program and its strenuous physical activities. Jake’s parents sued Sheridan and his medical corporation, Sheridan Chiropractic, Inc., for negligence and obtained a jury verdict awarding plaintiffs $7 million in past noneconomic damages and $22.5 million in future noneconomic damages. On defendants’ post-verdict request, the trial court reduced the noneconomic damages award to the then statutory $250,000 cap under Civil Code section 3333.2,2 the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), finding Sheridan’s negligent physical examination of Jake “within the scope of his chiropractic license.” It later taxed plaintiffs’ expert fees and accrued prejudgment interest sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and Civil Code section 3291, reasoning that with the reduced verdict, plaintiffs did not show they obtained a more favorable result than their $249,999 settlement offers. Jake’s parents appealed, contending that as a matter of statutory interpretation MICRA does not apply because Sheridan failed to establish he acted within the scope of his chiropractic license when he evaluated Jake and recommended him for strenuous physical activity.
The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California stated in its February 28, 2025 opinion: “plaintiffs concede that preparticipation screening evaluations for student athletics are within the scope of chiropractic practice. Thus, we have no occasion to decide that point … We assume without deciding that the examination itself was within the scope of services for which Sheridan was licensed … The issue is more narrowly whether Sheridan’s decision to clear Jake for JROTC after having learned of his abnormal cardiac condition and nonworking defibrillator fell “within any restriction imposed by the [Board of Chiropractic Examiners]” (Lopez, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 863) so as to exempt him from MICRA … we conclude that under the law, regulations and authorities above, the answer in fact turns on whether that clearing decision constitutes the practice of medicine, which both section 7 of the Chiropractic Act and regulation 302, subdivision (a)(3), specifically restrict from the scope of chiropractic practice. If so, plaintiffs’ action is not one for professional negligence to which MICRA applies.”
The California appellate court held: “We hold Sheridan’s clearance decision was not the practice of medicine. Given the narrow set of undisputed facts as to how Sheridan conducted his evaluation, the legal question (Lopez, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 857) is straightforward. It is governed only by the statutes themselves and consistent regulations, as well as the Attorney General’s interpretation, not by the trial expert testimony on the issue of chiropractic standard of care or the practice of medicine … In evaluating and clearing Jake, Sheridan did not “diagnose . . . any . . . physical . . . condition,” meaning he did not “ascertain or establish whether [Jake was] suffering from any physical . . . disorder.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 2038, 2052.) Rather, having received Jake’s screening questionnaire, Sheridan conducted his evaluation already knowing of Jake’s abnormal cardiac history. He did not medically diagnose Jake’s condition, which was already disclosed to him. Because Sheridan’s clearance decision did not involve a diagnosis within the meaning of the Medical Practice Act, it was not conduct excepted from MICRA’s definition of professional negligence as “within any restriction imposed by the licensing agency . . . .” (Former § 3333.2, subd. (c)(2).)”
“It is evident that during the course of an evaluation, a chiropractor may diagnose conditions to determine if they are outside the scope of chiropractic practice (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 302, subd. (a)(3); 59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 423, supra) and not “subject to appropriate management by chiropractic methods and techniques.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 317, subd. (w).) This type of diagnosis—as used in the colloquial sense—“do[es] not fall exclusively within the purview of the practice of medicine” … To the extent plaintiffs’ action was based on Sheridan’s failure to refer Jake to his treating cardiologist or other appropriate physician to make the clearance decision, it does not take the action outside MICRA.”
Source Drost v. Sheridan, D084816.
If you or a family member were harmed as a result of chiropractor malpractice in California or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a California medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your chiropractor malpractice claim for you and represent you or your family member in a chiropractor malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us toll free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find chiropractor malpractice attorneys in California or in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
