Teiken v. Reynolds
In Teiken v. Reynolds, 904 P.2d 1387 (Colo. App. 1995) the Court upheld the dismissal of certain deceptive trade practices claims in medical malpractice context based upon plaintiffs' failure to file certificate of review.
There, in a medical malpractice action, a division of this court noted that plaintiffs had alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting the qualities, characteristics, suitability, and benefits of breast implants and that the implants were of reputable quality and were safe and fit for the purpose intended.
The division further noted that plaintiffs' allegations that these defendants misrepresented the risks involved in the implantation incorporated, and were based upon, the allegations in plaintiffs' professional negligence claims.
The division held that, because expert testimony was required to establish such allegations and to establish the truth or falsity of defendant's alleged representations that the breast implants were medically safe and suitable, the plaintiffs' claims based on violation of the Consumer Protection Act were subject to the certification requirements of 13-20-602.
The division noted that plaintiffs' allegations of misrepresentation were essentially allegations of incomplete disclosure of risk and, therefore, expert testimony was required to enable the jury to determine the accuracy of the representations and whether they were consistent with those made by other physicians of the same school of medicine practiced by defendant.