Download PDF
Semin intervent Radiol 2001; 18(4): 389-394
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-19099
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Legal Issues in Interventional Radiology: A Private Practitioner's Perspective

Harry Zibners
  • Sacramento Radiology Medical Group, Inc., Sacramento, California
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The number and complexity of legal issues affecting the practicing physician have increased significantly in the last decade. Most of these issues affect all physicians alike, regardless of specialty or practice situation. However, the impact of some may be more or less, depending on the physician's practice situation. Three such issues are discussed here: (1) informed consent and its limits (specifically, how much must the interventional radiologist reveal about his or her background, the capabilities and limitations of the equipment, and the arrangements under which he or she is paid); (2) the National Practitioner Data Bank (the effect that one's practice setting can have on reportability of malpractice payments and proposed changes in the law); (3) turf battles (the potential legal consequences of physician confrontations).

KEYWORD

Informed consent - National Practitioner Data Bank - turf battles

REFERENCES

  • 1 Kollas C D. Exploring internal medicine chief residents' medicolegal knowledge.  Journal of Legal Medicine . 1997;  18 47-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 vanSonnenberg E, Barton J B, Wittich G B. Radiology and the law, with an emphasis on interventional radiology.  Radiology . 1993;  187 297-303
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Spring D B, Tennenhouse D J. Radiology malpractice lawsuits: California jury verdicts.  Radiology . 1986;  159 811-814
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Havinghurst C C. Health Care Law and Policy.  Westbury, NY: Foundation Press 1988: 844
    Google Scholar
  • 5 . .  Health Law Digest December . 1999;  27 42
    PubMed
  • 6 ACR Policy on Informed Consent. American College of Radiology Online. Available at http://www.acr.org/f-legal.html
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Black H C. . Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. St Paul, MN: West Publishing 1983
  • 8 Napel S, Foley D, Glazer G M. Multislice CT. Diagnostic Imaging 1999 (November) (Suppl) Available at www. diagnosticimaging.com
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Jacobson P D, Rosenquist C J. The introduction of low-osmolar contrast agents in radiology. Medical, economic, legal, and public policy issues.  JAMA. 1988;  260 1586-1592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pearson S D, Sabin J E, Emanuel E J. Ethical guidelines for physician compensation based on capitation.  New Engl J Med . 1998;  339 689-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Robinson J C, Lawrence P C. The growth of medical groups paid through capitation in California.  New Engl J Med . 1995;  333 1684-1687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schneidman D S. Trends in medical professional liability claims.  Bull Am Coll Surg . 1999;  84 8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Physician Insurers Association of America. The American College of Radiology Practice Claims Survey.  Physician Insurers Association of America Rockville, MD 1997: 25-26
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Piorkowski J D, Gibbs R F, Hirsh H L. Malpractice liability, risk management. In: American College of Legal Medicine, eds. Legal Medicine: Legal Dynamics of Medical Encounters, 2nd ed St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book 1991: 518
    Google Scholar
  • 15 . National Practitioner Data Bank, 2000 annual report. Available at www.npdb-hipdb.com at page 6
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Healthcare Supersite. Available at www.credentialinfo.com . 
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Fasi J M. National Practitioner Data Bank Help or Hindrance?. Paper presented at 33rd Annual Conference on Legal Medicine of the American College of Legal Medicine Las Vegas, Nevada, March 11-13, 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 18 . Health Law Update, April 13, 1999;16. McDermott, Will & Emory. Available at www.mew.com/news/hlul605.htm
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. Hospital Reporting to the National Practitioner Data Bank. February 1995 as reported in BNA's Health Care Daily, July 28, 1999;4. Available at http://pubs.bna.com/ip/ BNA/hce.nsf/id/a0a2a7n9m2
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Friedenberg R M. The future of medicine and radiology. Part II.  Radiology . 1999;  213 3-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Margulis A R, Sunshine J H. Radiology at the turn of the millenium.  Radiology . 2000;  214 15-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sandrick K. Physician groups in conflict over vascular centers.  Diagnostic Imaging . 1999;  21 83-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lingle E A, Frazier D S. Physician defamation: candor rarely results in liability.  Journal of Legal Medicine . 1997;  18 521-538
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Franklin M A, Rabin R L. . Tort Law and Alternatives, 3rd ed. Mineola, NY: The Foundation Press, Inc.; 1983: 920
  • 25 Levin D C, Rao V M, Bree R L, Neiman H L. Turf battles in radiology: how the radiology community can collectively respond to the challenge.  Radiology . 1999;  211 301-305
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Zibners H. Physician contracting and antitrust law. In: Siegel BA, Siegel MJ, eds. Risk Management Reston, VA: The American College of Radiology 1999: 117-126
    Google Scholar
      >