This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Paducah, Ky., Feb. 2, 1898.
To the Editor:
—In October, 1897, the undersigned was sued for malpractice in the sum of $10,000 for subjecting a patient to the X-rays which produced a severe dermatitis, the plaintiff setting up the claim that the apparatus was carelessly used, and further that the means used was not yet sufficiently well understood as to warrant its use for the purpose of locating foreign bodies, etc. The suit was ably contested and fortunately was decided in my favor, the court holding that in this as in other cases the physician was bound to use ordinary skill and judgment, and placed the case upon the same footing as chloroform anesthesia.Knowing that there were several suits of this character in the courts I thought perhaps it would be of some interest to report it, since I have as yet been unable to find that the subject
Boyd F. X-Ray Dermatitis; Suit for Damages. JAMA. 1898;XXX(7):387. doi:10.1001/jama.1898.02440590047014
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: