Photographic Images, Digital Imaging, Dermatology, and the Law

Archives of Dermatology

Volumn 140, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 473-476

  Scheinfeld, Noah ^a  

^a ST LUKE S ROOSEVELT HOSPITAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; IMAGING; LAW; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL RECORD; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT RIGHT; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; LEGAL APPROACH; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP;

CONFIDENTIALITY; DERMATOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ETHICS, MEDICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; PHOTOGRAPHY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN DISEASES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1842635734     PISSN: 0003987X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archderm.140.4.473     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. 42 CFR §482.24 (1990).
2. Carr v St Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co, 384 F Supp 821, 831 (WD Ark 1974).
3. Koch RJ, Chavez A. Medicolegal aspects of imaging and Internet communications. Facial Plast Surg. 1999;15:139-144.
4. Logan v Clarke, 119 F3d 647 (8th Cir 1997).
5. Chavez AE, Dagum P, Koch RJ, Newman JP. Legal issues of computer imaging in plastic surgery: a primer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1601-1608.
6. Barry CJ, Yogesan K, Constable IJ, Eikelboom RH. A case for electronic manipulation of medical images? J Audiov Media Med. 1999;22:15-20.
7. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Science and technology-fifth report. Available at: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co .uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldsctech/064v/st0501.htm. Accessed July 10, 2003.
8. Scardina vs Maersk Line, Ltd, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23135 (ED La 2002).
9. Thapedi AM. The computer generated cadaver: a new development in medical malpractice and personal injury litigation. J Marshall J Comput Info Law. 1995; 13:313-340.
10. Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technologies (SWGIT). General guidelines for capturing latent impressions using a digital camera (version 1.2, December 6, 2001). Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002 /index.htm. Accessed July 10, 2003.
11. Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technologies (SWGIT). Guidelines for field applications of imaging technologies in the criminal justice system (version 2.3, December 6, 2001). Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/h q/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002 /index.htm. Accessed July 10, 2003.
12. Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technologies (SWGIT). Guidelines and recommendations for training in imaging technologies in the criminal justice system (version 1.2, December 6, 2001). Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc /backissu/april2002/index.htm. Accessed July 10, 2003.
13. Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technologies (SWGIT). Considerations for managers (version 1.2, December 6, 2001). Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/hq /lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/index.htm. Accessed July 10, 2003.
14. Suvarna SK, Ansary MA. Histopathology and the "third great lie": when is an image not a scientifically authentic image? Histopathology. 2001;39:441-446.
15. Bruder GA, Casale J, Goren A, Friedman S. Alteration of computer dental radiography images. J Endod. 1999;25:275-276.
16. Tsang A, Sweet D, Wood RE. Potential for fraudulent use of digital radiography. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130:1325-1329.
17. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Digital images as evidence: government response. 8th report. Available at: http://www.parliament .the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldsctech/121/12105.htm. Accessed December 20, 2003.
18. Kocsis O, Costaridou L, Mandellos G, Lymberopoulos D, Panayiotakis G. Compression assessment based on medical image quality concepts using computer-generated test images. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2003; 71:105-115.
19. Southern California Association of Fingerprint Officers. Available at: http://www .scafo.org. Accessed July 10, 2003.
20. 45 CFR §164.512 (2003).