Skip to main content

Impact of Law on Pathology Practice—Everyday Occurrences

  • Chapter
Pathology and Law

Abstract

Pathologists are physicians, a fact pathologists sometimes remind others of when it suits the pathologist’s purpose. Otherwise, pathologists, who have chosen to toil in the wings, are usually content to be overlooked. Nevertheless, the pathologist is a physician first and a pathologist second. Therefore, pathologists have legal obligations that are common to all physicians. Some of those common obligations, however, do take on a special twist in the practice of pathology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pike v. Honsinger, 155 N.Y. 201 (1898).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mackauf SH. Neurologic malpractice: the perspective of a patient’s lawyer. Neurol Clinics 1999; 17: 345–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. The Holy Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989. Luke; 10: 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gatter K. Pap test perils. CAP Today. 2003; 17 (2): 64–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Steigman CK, Vernick JP. The Pap smear: a victim of its own success? Med Lab Observer 2002; 34 (8): 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  6. McPhee Si. Maximizing the benefits of autopsy for clinicians and families. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996; 120: 743–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baker PB, Saladino AJ. Q-Probe 92–06: Autopsy Contributions in Quality Assurance: Data Analysis and Critique. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nichols L, Aronica P, Babe C. Are autopsies obsolete? Am J Clin Pathol 1998; 110: 210–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bove KE, Iery C, Autopsy Committee of CAP. The role of the autopsy in medical malpractice cases, I: a review of 99 appeals court decisions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002; 126: 1023–31.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Taragin MI, Willett LR, Wilczek AP, et al. The influence of standards of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 780–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Holder AR. Medical Malpractice Law. New York: Wiley Biomedical Health, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  12. College of American Pathologists. Minimum guidelines for the retention of laboratory records and materials [online] [cited 2003 Jan 8]; Available from http://www.cap.org/html/LIP/autoprec.html

  13. Redfern M, Keeling J, Powell E. Report of the Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry [online] [cited 2002 Nov 25]; Available from http://www.rlcinquiry.org.uk

  14. Schimmel EM. The hazards of hospitalization, 1964. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12 (1): 58–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lemonick MD. Doctors’ deadly mistakes. Time. 1999 Dec 13; 154 (24): 74–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Richardson WC, Berwick DM, Bisgard JC, Bristow LR, Buck CR, et al. The Institute of Medicine report on medical errors: misunderstanding can do harm. Quality of health care in America committee. Med Gen Med. 2000;Sep 19; E42.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Morrissey J. Encyclopedia of errors. Growing database of medication errors allows hospitals to compare their track records with facilities nationwide in a nonpunitive setting. Mod Healthcare 2003 Mar 24; 33(12): 40, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  18. DeRosier J, Stalhandske E, Bagian JP, Budell T. Using health care failure mode and effect analysis: the VA National Center for Patient Safety’s prospective risk analysis system. J Comm J Qual Improv 2002; 28 (5): 248–67.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Travers EM. Legal risk management in the clinical laboratory. In: Travers EM. Clinical Laboratory Management. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kinderman K. Professional liability: informal consults give rise to the physician-patient relationship? J Med Pract Manage 2002; 17 (6): 305–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hendel T. Informal consultations: do new risks exist for this age-old tradition?. J Med Pract Manage 2002; 17 (6): 308–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fox BC, Weinstein RA. “Curbside” consultation and informal communication in medical practice: a medicolegal perspective. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 2: 616–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davis, G.G., Scott, M.A. (2004). Impact of Law on Pathology Practice—Everyday Occurrences. In: Pathology and Law. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21818-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21818-2_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-20035-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-21818-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics