Blog

When an attorney is deciding between easy-to-handle JPG images or larger and bulkier DICOM files to illustrate their clients’ medical issues, which is better? Should you take the easy way out? 

What you may not know is that the file format for these images can significantly differ, impacting their integrity and relevancy to your case. If winning your case is important to you or your client, you probably shouldn't take the easy way out. 

Litigators involved in medical malpractice, personal injury, workers compensation, elder care law and other related medical fields, are realizing that medical images hold a trove of information that if used correctly, can make all the difference in their case. Often lawyers take the easier path by using "pictures" of medical images – jpg files – rather than the DICOM images themselves. This may be sufficient for a simple case. But a more complex case requires the richer, more complex and more difficult to view, store and share DICOM formatted file.

Attorneys who handle the sensitive private health information (PHI) of their clients are responsible for the confidentiality and safekeeping of their client’s medical records. For lawyers engaged in litigation involving healthcare matters, understanding and adhering to requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)[1] is not just a regulatory requirement but a crucial aspect of protecting the privacy and confidentiality of individuals' health data as well as safeguarding of the firm’s reputation.

The following is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information provided in this post is not a substitute for professional legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Readers should always consult with a licensed attorney or qualified legal professional for advice on specific legal issues. The author of this post and any entities associated with the author are not responsible for any actions or decisions taken by readers based on the information provided in this paper.

"If I have a physician or contract with a team of physicians licensed in every state,
does that make my remote second opinions issued anywhere legal?"

This question inevitably comes up. On its surface, you might expect that this encompassing licensure paves the way for your organization to issue remote second opinions anywhere in the country. However, a close reading of the law of each state contradicts that premise.

In order to provide a remote second opinion, a physician that is not licensed in the state in which the patient is physically located (ostensibly, one of your specialists), must either rely on an exception or exemption from that state’s licensure laws and regulations in order to legally deliver that opinion. Having another physician, not the one rendering the opinion, who is licensed in the target state, may actually not provide you with sufficient legal stature.

As a legal professional, obtaining copies of your client's medical records can be a frustrating and time-consuming process. However, once you have the records, it's essential to use them efficiently by sharing them with medical experts or expert witnesses. Doing so requires a thorough understanding of the issues involved, including how to organize client records, share copies securely, protect PHI, and maintain attorney/client-privileged communication.

In this blog post, we'll provide a comprehensive guide on how to share medical records effectively and securely with expert witnesses. By following our tips, you can avoid delays and frustrations and maximize the value of the medical evidence in your case.