#Dicom file viewer trial#
That makes sense, I was basing my arguments on the one trial I was a jury at, in which the lawyers presented evidence and the experts commented on it. When I worked for Radiologists who acted as expert witnesses in trial, it was always on the Radiologist to be the one to bring and show the DICOM images. Imaging informaticist for a large radiology practice. But most things out of the ordinary are still sent to specialized Radiologists. Are you just trying to disprove me because you disagree with me? All kinds of doctors use DICOM imaging, yes. PS to your PS: I'm not sure what the point of your post is. There is a difference between DICOM imaging and blood samples though. I've never served on a jury, but I would hope the evidence was thorough. Hell, the hole point of the argument is that Lawyers don't need to see imaging anymore than the patients themselves do. "Lawyers don't have infinite knowledge in everything. Having a picture to point to that your marks are referenced on when talking seems to me like little more than theatrics.Īgain, this would happen in cross-examination of the expert witness (the Rad with the images).Įxactly what "metadata" is it that you need that you aren't able to get from other areas of discovery? That's ridiculous. In fact I specifically remember the products I purchased for them to do it with.Īgain, any annotations of interest would be available in the report the Radiologist provides. I've never heard of a lawyer being the one to present a DICOM image in a court room. I'm curious, are you a legal assistant? Because a lot of what you talk about are the same arguments legal assistants use to give to me. Dentists use DICOM, so do cardiologists, veterinarians, and POCUS is now huge. PS - your thought that radiologists are the only ones that should review DICOM images is silly. He could have just told us that the perps blood was found at the scene, but that isn't as compelling as the actual artifacts. Nobody in the jury could tell you what the blood samples represented without that expert, but they must be shown to us anyways. I was jury for a trial and every piece of evidence that was discussed was shown to us, including blood vials from the perpetrator that an expert then explained correlated to blood samples at the crime scene, that were also shown to us. Providing imagery along with expert testimony makes a huge difference. They need to efficiently interact with their experts in compelling ways. Lawyers don't have infinite knowledge in everything. Yeah you can get this without a DICOM viewer but it's way more user friendly with something like Microdicom. DICOM viewers will easily read DICOM metadata and output in a good format.
Opposing council may not bring their own witness, but they'll still want to review the images to confirm the evidence matches the descriptions that were submitted.Yeah they can take notes while they talk to them, but having a DICOM viewer means they can then confirm the notes before trial. If their expert witness is putting annotations on the image, they will review those annotations with that witness and convert medical language to law language. There are plenty of easily readable annotations on the images, IE tumor measurements.They may not understand the image, but would want to see it or convert it for those purposes. Lawyer may need to present the images during the case, which would involve hooking up their laptop to a projector in the court room.
0 kommentar(er)
