The Club Doctor in the Querencia Los Cabos Case: What the Record Shows About a Medical-Report Offense
On March 25, 2025, a 5-year-old girl was thrown out of a golf cart at Querencia Los Cabos, in San José del Cabo, Baja California Sur, Mexico. According to police and prosecutors' records, the club doctor, who is under investigation, was among those with her on arrival at Hospital H+ Los Cabos. According to a statement in the investigation file, after being thrown she was struck by Querencia's truck, which weighs more than 500 kilograms (over 1,100 pounds). According to a decision dated February 11, 2026, and its authorization, a state prosecutor's proposal was not to prosecute four parties for three offenses, one of them failure to file a medical report. They were the club doctor and the driver, both under investigation, and two companies; against the driver, the decision sought prosecution on unintentional bodily injury and property damage. According to the transcription of the ruling, a pretrial judge revoked that decision on September 23, 2026, and ordered the investigation to continue. In the same ruling, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies.
The club doctor on March 25, 2025
At about 10:15 a.m. that day, on Boulevard Querencia, a truck bearing Querencia markings hit the rear of a golf cart.
According to the police report and the notice of the prosecutors' early-attention unit, the girl arrived at Hospital H+ Los Cabos at about 10:40 a.m. The club doctor, who is under investigation, was among those who came in with her.
A medical-report offense in the investigation file
Mexican state prosecutors (the Ministerio Público) keep a written record of each inquiry, the investigation file (carpeta de investigación).
This file was opened for four offenses: failure to file a medical report (omisión de informe médico), failure to render aid (omisión de auxilio), unintentional bodily injury (lesiones culposas) and property damage (daños).
Broadly, the medical-report offense covers not meeting a legal duty to notify the authorities of certain injuries. It is separate from the other omission offense in the file, which concerns helping someone in danger.
What the decision not to prosecute said
According to the decision, dated February 11, 2026, and its authorization, it proposed not prosecuting, for atipicidad, in favor of Querencia Real Estate, Querencia Golf Club, the club doctor, José Luis Sánchez Musi, who is under investigation, and the driver, for failure to render aid, failure to file a medical report and concealment (encubrimiento).
For the driver, who is under investigation, it did call for prosecution on unintentional bodily injury and property damage.
In a decision not to prosecute (no ejercicio de la acción penal), a prosecutor formally chooses not to take specific conduct before a judge. Atipicidad is the conclusion that the facts do not match the legal definition of an offense.
According to its authorization, dated February 13, 2026, it was approved "on the same terms proposed" (translated from Spanish). The authorization refers to "not prosecuting due to atipicidad" (translated from Spanish) for those three offenses.
See the decision not to prosecute, explained.
The July 15, 2026 request for a charging hearing
On July 15, 2026, a state prosecutor asked a pretrial judge (Juez de Control) for a charging hearing (audiencia de imputación). At that hearing, charges may be formally brought; it is not a trial.
Three parties appeared in the request: the club doctor and the driver, both under investigation, and Querencia Construcciones, S. de R.L. de C.V. That suffix marks a type of Mexican company similar to a U.S. LLC.
What the pretrial judge did
According to the transcription of the ruling, on September 23, 2026, a pretrial judge in Los Cabos revoked the decision not to prosecute, dated February 11, 2026, and authorized on February 13, because it was not properly grounded or reasoned, and ordered the investigation to continue. In the same ruling, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies (personas morales).
A decision is grounded and reasoned (fundada y motivada) when it cites its legal basis and explains why it applies. The ruling allowed prosecutors to issue a new decision, properly grounded and reasoned.
What Querencia Real Estate wrote
The written response was sent to state prosecutors by a company, Querencia Real Estate, S. de R.L. de C.V.; the club doctor, who is under investigation, is not its author.
Querencia Real Estate submitted that written response on February 4, 2026, almost 11 months after the accident, signed by its attorney, Francisco Javier Troncoso Valle.
Among other points, it wrote that the minor "was taken to a hospital to rule out any injury that could result from the traffic incident" (translated from Spanish).
In it, the company wrote that the truck "is in operation within the Querencia development" (translated from Spanish) and offered it for inspection. According to the police report, a tow truck had taken it to a body shop moments after the accident. According to a statement in the investigation file, that move "makes it impossible to carry out any further investigative act" (translated from Spanish).
Key questions
What role does the club doctor have in the Querencia Los Cabos case record?
According to the police report and the early-attention unit's notice, the club doctor, who is under investigation, was among those with the girl on arrival at Hospital H+ Los Cabos on March 25, 2025. A state prosecutor's July 15, 2026 charging-hearing request named the club doctor and the driver, both under investigation, and Querencia Construcciones, S. de R.L. de C.V.
What is the failure-to-file-a-medical-report offense in the Querencia Los Cabos case?
Failure to file a medical report (omisión de informe médico) is one of four offenses for which state prosecutors opened the investigation file into the accident of March 25, 2025, at Querencia Los Cabos. In general, it concerns a legal duty to report certain injuries to the authorities.
What happened to the decision not to prosecute that included the club doctor?
According to the transcription of the ruling, on September 23, 2026, a pretrial judge revoked that decision, dated February 11, 2026, because it was not properly grounded or reasoned, and ordered the investigation to continue. In the same ruling, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies.
Keep reading
This page will be updated when the next step in the case is on record.