Duty to directly communicate radiologic abnormalities: Has the pendulum swung too far?

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 181, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 375-381

  Berlin, Leonard ^a,b  

^a RUSH NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b RUSH MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AORTA RUPTURE; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; EMERGENCY WARD; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; KIDNEY CANCER; LAW SUIT; MALE; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEGLIGENCE; PLEURA EFFUSION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RADIOLOGY; STANDARD; TELECOMMUNICATION; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 0041843885     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.2.1810375     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Berlin L. Communication of the urgent finding. AJR 1996;166:513-515
2. Berlin L. Communication of the significant but not urgent finding. AJR 1997;168:329-331
3. Cascade PN, Berlin L. American College of Radiology standard for communication. AJR 1999; 173;1439-1442
4. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1991
5. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology. 1995:5-6
6. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards, 1999-2000. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999:1-3
7. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards, 2002-2003. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2002:3-5
8. Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993:373-374, 647
9. Berlin L. Standard of care. AJR 1998;170:275-278
10. Potchen EJ, Bisesi MA. When is it malpractice to miss lung cancer on chest radiographs? Radiology 1990;175:29-32
11. Hyams AL, Brandenburg JA, Lipsitz SR, Shapiro DW, Brennan TA. Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:450-455
12. Drucker EA. Brennan TA. Legal implications of practice guidelines for physicians and professional societies. Semin Interv Radiol 1995;12:310-317
13. Crane M. Clinical guidelines: a malpractice safety net? Med Econ 1999;76:236-243
14. Felsenthal E. Doctors' own guidelines hurt them in court. Wall Street Journal, October 19, 1994;B1,B12
15. Phillips v Good Samaritan Hospital, 416 NE2d 646 (Ohio App 1979)
16. Corteau v Dodd, 773 SW2d 436 (Ark 1989)
17. Townsend v Turk, 218 Calif App 3d 278 (Calif 1990)
18. Rosoff AJ. Evidence-based medicine and the law: the courts confront clinical practice guidelines. J Health Polit Policy Law 2001;26:327-368
19. Jewett v Our Lady of Mercy Hospital of Mariemont, 612 NE2d 724 (Ohio App 1992)
20. Washington v Washington Hospital Center, 579 A2d 177 (DC App 1990)
21. Anderson v United States, 731 F Supp 391 (US Dist N Dak 1990)
22. Taylor v Cannaday, 749 P2d 63 (Mont 1988)
23. Mello MM. Of swords and shields: the role of clinical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2001;149:645
24. Finder JM. The future of practice guidelines: Should they constitute conclusive evidence of the standard of care? Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine 2000;10:67
25. Ginsberg, MD. Beyond the viewbox: the radiologist's duty to communicate findings. The John Marshall Law Review 2002;35:359-380
26. Berlin L. Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist's duty? AJR 2002;178:809-815
27. Berlin L. Bearing false witness. AJR 2003;180: 1515-1521
28. Berlin L. The miasmatic expert witness. AJR 2003;181:29-35