This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Imposition of Fine for Error in Diagnosis
In previous letters (The Journal, Dec. 16, 1922, p. 2099, and June 2, 1923, p. 1628) I referred to a decision of the court of appeals of Rouen, imposing a penalty on Dr. Vallet of Vernon for an error in diagnosis, as the result of which he operated on a woman for fibroma when in reality she was pregnant. The fact that Vallet had not made a roentgen-ray examination seems to have influenced the court seriously against him. The decision was thus expressed:It is justifiable to consider whether or not Dr. Vallet, in view of the present status of roentgenology, was guilty of neglect in that he did not take advantage of the diagnostic help that roentgenology affords, in doubtful cases. Although Prof. J. L. Faure testified before the court that the use of this method of exploration under the existing conditions
PARIS. JAMA. 1923;81(21):1800–1802. doi:10.1001/jama.1923.02650210066023
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: