Blankenship v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co

In Blankenship v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. (41 Colo App 430, 432, 588 P2d 888, 890 [1978]), the court reiterated that a doctor of medicine "is not ipso facto an incompetent witness" simply because the case involved a chiropractor's actions. The issue in that case was whether the chiropractor's charges "were reasonable and necessary" (41 Colo App at 431, 588 P2d at 890). The defendant opposed the chiropractor's claim for payment by presenting proof from an orthopedist that the chiropractor's treatments were "neither necessary nor beneficial." (Id.) Rejecting plaintiff's claim on appeal that the orthopedist was "not competent to testify as an expert against a chiropractic practitioner," the court held: "The issue in this case was not whether, based on the standard of care and degree of skill customarily observed by practitioners of chiropractic, Dr. Collinson was guilty of malpractice or had been negligent in the treatment administered. Rather, the issue was whether the chiropractic services furnished were 'reasonable and necessary' ... Any evidence which aided the jury in deciding that question was proper. The plaintiffs' contention goes only to the witness' credibility." (41 Colo App at 432, 588 P2d at 890.)