This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
This new edition of a book originally published in 1937 still bears a somewhat misleading title. Although some emphasis is given to the perplexities that may arise when a roentgenologist is called into court as a witness, most of the discussion relates to aspects of medicolegal problems that are only indirectly associated with this subject. The book is readable and informative if carefully read. Some statements in it may confuse the casual reader. To illustrate, on page 13 the author states: "Within the meaning of the New York State Public Health Law, superfluous hair on the face is a deformity, and its removal with an electric needle is, therefore, the practice of medicine under the New York Medical Practice Act." A New York court decision so holding is cited, but that decision was reversed on appeal, as the author himself relates on the page that follows. On page 32 the
The Roentgenologist in Court.. JAMA. 1954;155(17):1541. doi:10.1001/jama.1954.03690350083030