medical malpractice case. United Blood Servs. v. Quintana, 827 P.2d 509, 520 (Colo.1992). However, a determination of the nature and existence of a generally accepted standard of medical practice cannot be determined simply by counting how many physi-clans follow a particular practice. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. McCroskey, 880 P.2d 1188, 1194 (Colo.1994). According to the McCroskey court: "[Alscertaining the objectively reasonable standard of care is more than just a factual finding of what all, most, or even a 'respectable minority of physicians do, although the actual practice in a community is certainly the starting point in any analysis." State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. McCroskey, supra, 880 P.2d at 1194-95; see also Denver & Rio Grande R.R. v. Vitello, 34 Colo. 50, 81 P. 766 (1905)(<HOLDING>). Here, in addition to Rothenberg, one expert
holding that the error of allowing unsequestered witnesses to testify in violation of a motion to separate witnesses was harmless error because the state presented overwhelming evidence supporting defendants conviction holding that it was error to permit expert witnesses to testify as to what they would have done under cireumstances similar to the train derailment at issue holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify holdingthat a defendant could not show prejudice based on his trial counsels alleged failure to thoroughly investigate the case and call potential witnesses because he made no proffer as to what additional investigation would have uncovered or what the witnesses would have said if they had testified