Erratum to "Medicolegal Aspects of Telepathology" [Hum Pathol 2009;40:1137-42] Stanley T. Leung, MD, JD, and Keith J. Kaplan, MD (DOI:10.1016/j.humpath.2009.01.009);Medicolegal aspects of telepathology

Human Pathology

Volumn 40, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1137-1142

  Leung, Stanley T ^a   Kaplan, Keith J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Anatomic pathology; Law; Telepathology

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; ANTIKICKBACK LAW; ARTICLE; LABORATORY; LAW; LEGAL LIABILITY; MALPRACTICE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PATHOLOGIST; REIMBURSEMENT; TELEMEDICINE; TELEPATHOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 67650441693     PISSN: 00468177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.10.013     Document Type: Erratum

References (30)

1. Kaplan K.J., Burgess J.R., Sandberg G.D., et al. Use of robotic telepathology for frozen-section diagnosis: a retrospective trial of a telepathology system for intraoperative consultation. Mod Path 15 (2002) 1197-1204
2. Meek D.F. Comment: telemedicine: how an Apple (or another computer) may bring your doctor closer. Cumberland Law Rev 29 (1998) 173-200
3. Dent v. State of West Virginia, 129 US 115 (1889).
4. 42 USC §254c-18.
5. Ala.Amin.Code §545-X-6.01(1)(a).
6. See, e.g., W.Va. Code §30-3-13(a).
7. See, e.g., Wis.Stat. §448.01(0)(a).
8. AK, CT, DC, MD, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, ND, OK, PA, RI, SC, VT, and VA.
9. See, e.g., Office for the Advancement of telehealth, U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, 107th Cong., 2001 Telemedicine Report to Congress 21-25 (2001).
10. Dierks C. Legal aspects of telepathology. Anal Cell Pathol 21 (200) 97-99. See also Buravkov SV, Bortnikov AA, Digital image processing and transmission for teleconsultation in pathology, Telemed (1999), TM 99/024, 200.
11. Ala.Amin.Code §545-X-6-.01(4).
12. Gilinsky v. Indelicato, 894 F.Supp. 86 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).
13. See, e.g., Lopez v. Aziz, 852 S.W.2d 303, 305-7 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993); Walters v. Rinker, 520 N.E.2d 468, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988); Dougherty v. Gifford, 826 S.W.2d 668, 673-75 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 1992).
14. Walters v Rinker, 520 NE2d at 472.
15. Id at 468.
16. Halliday B.E., Bhattacharyya A.K., Graham A.R., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of an international static-imaging telepathology consultation service. Hum Pathol 28 (1997) 17-21
17. Deminichelis F., Barbareschi M., Boi S., et al. Robotic telepathology for intraoperative remote diagnosis using a still imaging-based system. Am J Clin Pathol 116 (2001) 744-752
18. Odze R.D., Tomaszewski J.E., Furth E.E., et al. Variability in the diagnosis of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis by dynamic telepathology. Oncol Rep 16 (2006) 1123-1129
19. Massone C., Peter S.H., Lozzi G.P., et al. Feasibility and diagnostic agreement in teledermatopathology using a virtual slide system. Hum Pathol 38 (2007) 546-554
20. Odze R.D., Goldblum J., Noffsinger A., et al. Interobserver variability in the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis-associated dysplasia by telepathology. Mod Pathol 15 (2002) 379-386
21. Rannefeld L. The doctor will e-mail you now: physicians' use of telemedicine to treat patients over the Internet. J Law Health 19 (2004-2005) 75-105
22. West R.W., Sipe C.Y., and Bentley T.J. Teleradiology: a legal perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 1 (2004) 242-243
23. 42 U.S.C. §1320a-7b.
24. 59 Fed. Reg. 65,372, 65,377 (Dec. 19, 1994).
25. 98 Op. Off. Inspector Gen. 18 (1998).
26. 99 Op. Off. Insepctor Gen. 14 (1999).
27. United States v. Greber, 760 F.2d at 68 (3d Cir. 1985).
28. American College of Physicians. Understanding the fraud and abuse laws: guidance for internists, 128. Ann Intern Med 678 (1998)
29. Degraw S.T. Defining "willful" remuneration: how Bryan v. United States affects the scienter requirement of the Medicare/Medicaid anti-kickback statute. J Law Health 14 (1999) [United States v. Jain, 93F3d 436 (8th Cir. 1996)]
30. States v. Starks, 157 F. 3d 833