[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 24, 1923

PARIS

JAMA. 1923;81(21):1800-1802. doi:10.1001/jama.1923.02650210066023

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

Abstract

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

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