[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
February 1, 1936


Author Affiliations

San Francisco. Supervisor of Medical Service, Southern Pacific Hospital.

JAMA. 1936;106(5):400-401. doi:10.1001/jama.1936.02770050056022

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:—  In an editorial in The Journal, Oct. 12, 1935, page 1193, on the decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan that an x-ray film made of a patient by, or for, his physician in the course of the study of the case, and necessarily a part of the record, is the property of the doctor by whom it was made, although paid for by the patient, unless he has entered into an agreement waiving ownership, you comment on the "successful issue" of the case. You close with the words "the decision leaves undetermined the questions whether a patient personally or through physicians, or others employed by him, has a right to inspect a roentgenographic negative while it remains in the possession of the physician who made it, or to require on payment of a reasonable cost, that prints of the negative be furnished to him." You end

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview