This case was a joy to read. The issue is basically whether a medical doctor may permissibly testify as an expert with respect to alleged malpractice committed by a chiropractor (in particular, whether a doctor can testify that the problem with the patient was obviously a medical problem and not one that could be fixed by chiropractic treatment). The majority opinion, written by Justice Sills, answers "Yes". Justice Ikola, in dissent, answers "No".
Both opinions are excellent. Indeed, at the end, both are sufficiently persuasive that I'm unclear which one I think has the better of the argument. So the case is definitely interesting from that perspective. Additionally, the footnotes in both opinions are excellent; to get a taste, just read the first footnote of the majority opinion, which (intelligently) explains why the Court of Appeal published the opinion even though the majority thinks the answer is crystal clear under controlling precedent.
I'd have been proud to write either the majority or dissenting opinion in this one.