Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-12T10:04:45.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 27 - The radiologist's response to child abuse

from Section IV - Diagnostic imaging of abuse in societal context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2015

By
Paul K. Kleinman
Edited by
Paul K. Kleinman
Paul K. Kleinman
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Boston Children’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Paul K. Kleinman
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital Boston
Get access

Summary

Scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly.

Justice Harry BlackmanDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.113 U.S. Supreme Court 2786 (1993) (1, 2)

Introduction

The traditional role of the diagnostic radiologist to supervise, evaluate, and reach conclusions regarding imaging examinations is generally performed with a sense of confidence, based on experience and a reasonable familiarity with the medical literature. When radiologists identify abnormalities in cases of suspected physical child abuse, they may be drawn from their relatively sheltered world of diagnostic imaging into a potentially daunting realm of child protection/welfare agents, law enforcement officers, and representatives of the courts (3–11). Because allegations of child abuse usually focus on the injured child's caretakers, the customary relationship between the radiologist and the patient's family may be fundamentally altered. In this sensitive area where a thorough and methodical imaging analysis is essential, the radiologist may be hampered by anxieties over involvement with societal institutions that function to protect the welfare of the child and to identify and prosecute individuals responsible for the injuries.

The three preceding chapters have described the societal context in which the radiologist dealing with cases of suspected child abuse must function. The goal has been to give factual information and guidance regarding the legalities in cases of alleged abuse. In this chapter, I would like to provide a personal perspective based on a career operating in this challenging arena. The opinions presented here reflect my own experiences and observations and are by no means applicable to all individuals and situations.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse , pp. 658 - 664
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Annas, GJ. Scientific evidence in the courtroom. The death of the Frye rule. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(14):1018–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, 509 U.S. (1993).
Moreno, JA. What do pediatric healthcare experts really need to know about Daubert and the rules of evidence?Pediatr Radiol. 2013;43(2):135–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, JL. Responsibilities and risks when radiologists evaluate patients for child abuse. AJR. 2013;200(5):948–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayton, EW. Potential liability in cases of child abuse and neglect. Pediatr Ann. 1997;26(3):173–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Medical Liability. Guidelines for expert witness testimony in medical malpractice litigation. Pediatrics. 2002;109(5):974–9.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. Court testimony in cases of nonaccidental trauma. In von Waldenberg-Hilton, S, Edwards, D, eds. Practical Pediatric Radiology, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2006.Google Scholar
Halverson, KC, Elliott, BA, Rubin, MS, Chadwick, DL. Legal considerations in cases of child abuse. Prim Care. 1993;20(2):407–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Wall, J. Re: AB (Child abuse: expert witnesses). Fam Law Rep. 1995;1: 181–200.Google Scholar
Wall, J, ed. The Paediatrician Expert, His Duties to the Court and the Child. Symposium organized by the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, Nov. 24, 1995. London: NHS Trust and Institute of Child Health.
Skellern, C, Donald, T. Defining standards for medico-legal reports in forensic evaluation of suspicious childhood injury. J Forensic Leg Med. 2012;19(5):267–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barber, I, Bixby, SD, Morris, NB, Kleinman, PL, Perez-Rossello, JM, Chang, PT, et al. An electronic skeletal survey data entry and compilation tool for reporting fractures in suspected child abuse: Prototype development and physician preferences. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44(12):1564–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Guideline for Skeletal Surveys in Children. Revised 2014 (Resolution 39). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2014:1–6. Available from .Google Scholar
American College of Radiology Committee on Ethics. ACR expert witness affirmation statement. American College of Radiology; 2011. Available from .
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Medical Liability and Risk Management. Expert witness participation in civil and criminal proceedings. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):428–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MA, Mackin, GA, Beresford, HR, Gordon, J, Jacobson, PL, McQuillen, MP, et al. American Academy of Neurology qualifications and guidelines for the physician expert witness. Neurology. 2006;66(1):13–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berlin, L. Bearing false witness. AJR. 2003;180(6):1515–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berlin, L, Williams, DM. Malpractice issues in radiology. When an expert witness is not an expert. AJR. 2000;174(5):1215–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynne, J. Doctors as expert witnesses. Arch Dis Child. 1999;81(2):189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter on the Physician Expert Witness in Radiology and Radiation Oncology. American College of Radiology, Amended 2014 (Resolution 39). Available from .
Meltzer, CC, Sze, G, Rommelfanger, KS, Kinlaw, K, Banja, JD, Wolpe, PR. Guidelines for the ethical use of neuroimages in medical testimony: report of a multidisciplinary consensus conference. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(4):632–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovis, TL, Strouse, PJ, Coley, BD, Rigsby, CK. The creation of non-disease: an assault on the diagnosis of child abuse. Pediatr Radiol. 2012;42(8):903–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, LK. Court testimony, child welfare and justice systems, and the emergency physician. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2012;13(3):249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, DM, Blanchard, JW, Knox, BL. Ensuring appropriate expert testimony for cases involving the “shaken baby.”JAMA. 2012;308(1):39–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narang, S. A Daubert analysis of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome. Hous J Health L Pol'y. 2011;11(3):505–633.Google Scholar
McGuire, L, Martin, KD, Leventhal, JM. Child abuse consultations initiated by Child Protective Services: the role of expert opinions. Acad Pediatr. 2011;11(6):467–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Experts Committee of the Family Justice Council. Guidelines for the Instruction of Medical Experts From Overseas in Family Cases. London: Family Justice Council, Judicial Office, Royal Courts of Justice; 2011.Google Scholar
Holmgren, BK. Irresponsible Expert Testimony. National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome; 2010. Available from .
Jenny, C. The intimidation of British pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2007;119(4):797–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, Guarnera, LA, Rufino, KA. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?Psychol Sci. 2013;24(10):1889–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narang, SK, Melville, JD, Greeley, CS, Anderst, JDCarpenter, SL, Spivack, B. A Daubert analysis of abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome – part II: an examination of the differential diagnosis. Hous J Health L Pol'y. 2012–2013;13(July 2013):203.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×