Standards, guidelines, and roses

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 181, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 945-950

  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

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; CASE REPORT; COURT; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL EXPERT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RADIOLOGY; REVIEW; STANDARD; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 0141743512     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.4.1810945     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Romeo and Juliet, act II. scene 2, lines 41-43. In: The complete works of William Shakespeare. London: Rex Library. 1973:752
2. Vaughan v Oliver, 822 So2d 1163 (Ala 2001)
3. Shuman DW. The standard of care in medical malpractice claims, clinical practice guidelines, and managed care: towards a therapeutic harmony? California Western Law Review 1997;34:99
4. Berlin L. Standard of care. AJR 1998;170:275-278
5. Jewett v Our Lady of Mercy Hospital of Mariemont. 612 NE2d 724 (Ohio App 1992)
6. Berlin L. On being an expert witness. AJR 1997;168:607-610
7. Hyams AL, Brandenburg JA, Lipsitz SR, Brennan TA. Report to Physician Payment Review Commission: practice guidelines and malpractice litigation. Boston: Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, 1994
8. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1991
9. Rosoff AJ. Evidence-based medicine and the law: the courts confront clinical practice guidelines. J Health Polit Policy Law 2001;26:327-368
10. Mello MM. Of swords and shields: the role of clinical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2001;149:645
11. Finder JM. The future of practice guidelines: should they constitute conclusive evidence of the standard of care? Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine 2000;10:67-117
12. 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
13. Drucker EA, Brennan TA. Legal implications of practice guidelines for physicians and professional societies. Semin Interv Radiol 1995;12:310-317
14. Ginsberg MD. Beyond the viewbox: the radiologist's duty to communicate findings. The John Marshall Law Review 2002;35:359-380
15. Aldoroty v HCA Health Services of Kansas. 962 P2d 501 (Kan 1998)
16. Berlin L. Bearing false witness. AJR 2003;180:1515-1521
17. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2002-2003. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2002:3-5
18. Diaz v New York Downtown Hospital. 784 NE2d 68 (NY 2002)
19. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for the performance of an ultrasound examination of the female pelvis. In: Standards 2002-2003. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2002:603-605
20. Stanley v McCarver. 63 P3d 1076 (Ariz App 2003)
21. Reed v Bojarski, 764 A2d 433 (NJ 2001)
22. Daly v United States of America, 946 F2d 1467 (9th Cir 1991)
23. Betesh v United States of America, 400 F Supp 238 (US Dist DC 1974)
24. American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Code of medical ethics. 10.03, Patient-physician relationship in the context of work-related and independent medical examinations. Chicago: American Medical Association, 2002:288
25. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for the performance of screening mammography. In: Standards 2002-2003. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2002:201-208