In Chadock v. Cohn (1979) 96 Cal. App. 3d 205, the Court of Appeal held that a witness to the applicable standard of care in a medical malpractice action need not possess the same professional degrees or certifications held by the defendant practitioner. In that case, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against a licensed medical doctor arising out of alleged negligence in the treatment of a leg and foot injury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit on the ground the plaintiff's expert witness was not qualified to testify to the applicable standard of care because he was a podiatrist, not a licensed medical doctor. (Id. at p. 207.) The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, explaining that the record showed that the witness's qualifications "were such as to permit the trier of fact to conclude he was familiar with the standards required of physicians with the defendant's qualifications." (Id. at p. 215.)