Enslen

The precise issue in this appeal is whether a family practice physician is ipso facto unqualified to render an expert opinion to the effect that a chiropractor should have known the condition the chiropractor was treating was not amenable to chiropractic treatment. This is not really a "standard of care" case in the strictest sense. The question is not whether the proper chiropractic treatment was rendered, but rather whether it was negligent on the part of the chiropractor not to realize and inform the patient that the patient's condition was beyond the competence of the chiropractor in the first place.

It is, however, a case where the precedent is clear. Ellinwood v. McCoy (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 590 , 47 P.2d 796 and Abos v. Martyn (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 705 , 88 P.2d 797 are directly on point. Ammon v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 783 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 748 , Chadock v. Cohn (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 205 , 157 Cal.Rptr. 640 , Hutter v. Hommel (1931) 213 Cal. 677 , 3 P.2d 554 , and Wallace v. La Vine (1940) 36 Cal.App.2d 450 , 97 P.2d 879 are substantively on point. All of these cases stand for the rule that an M.D. can testify to the failure of a chiropractor to inform…