Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Digital Imaging logoLink to Journal of Digital Imaging
. 1998 Feb;11(1):21–32. doi: 10.1007/BF03168722

Does products liability litigation threaten picture archiving and communication systems and/or telemedicine?

Joseph P McMenamin 1,✉
PMCID: PMC3453148  PMID: 9502323

Abstract

Numerous writers have commented on barriers to the growth and progress of telemedicine. Among these barriers are reimbursement concerns, professional liability exposure, licensing restrictions, hospital credentialing questions, and other problems. A legal threat not generally described in the literature to data is the possibility that products liability claims could be brought against manufacturers and distributors of hardware, software, and peripherals used in providing telemedicine services. Several of these concerns extend to picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), including, of course, teleradiology. This article considers that possibility in the context of several potential plaintiffs’ theories, discusses currently applicable law, and proposes approaches to diminishing the magnitude and severity of this potential threat.

Key Words: Radiology, PACS, legal aspects, products liability, confidentiality, encryption, data compression, artificial intelligence, telemedicine

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.7 MB).

Footnotes

Communications regarding the article should be directed to Dr. Joseph McMenamin, McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe LLP, One James Center, 901 E Cary St, Richmond, VA 23219.

Reprinted courtesy of Defense Research Institute Inc., Chicago, IL.

References

  • 1.Council on Medical Education and the Council on Medical Service of the American Medical Association: Joint Report. Released at the AMA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, June 1994
  • 2.Office of Technology Assessment. Congress of the United States: Bringing Healthcare Online: The Role of Information Technologies. OTA-ITC-624, 1995, (GPO Stock No. 052-003-01433-5)
  • 3.Grigsby J, Schlenker R, Kaehny M, et al. Analysis of Expansion of Access to Care Through Use of Telemedicine. Report 4: A Study Summary and Recommendations for Further Research. Denver, CO: Center for Health Policy Research; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chabra v. Southern Monterey County Memorial Hospital, Inc., 1994 (WL 564566)
  • 5.Birz SS, Anderson JS: Is the Computer a Threat to Confidentiality of Psychiatric Records? A Review, Lecture at Proceedings of SCAMC. Presented at Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, November 1–4, 1987. Reprinted in Computer Society of the IEEE Press, 1987.
  • 6.Computer Science and Telecommunications Board: Maintaining Privacy and Security in Health Care Applications of the National Information Infrastructure.http://www2.nas.edu/cstbweb/21ba.html (last updated 11/7/95) at 2, 3
  • 7.Dick R, Steen E, editors. The Computer-Based Patient Record. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991. The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment: Protecting Privacy in Computerized Medical Information. 1993
  • 9.For the Record: Protecting Electronic Health Information. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Highway to Health: Transforming U.S. Healthcare in the Information Age. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Public L No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1986 (codified as amended at 5 USC § 552a
  • 12.5 USC § 552a(b)
  • 13.Winters v. Board of County Commissioners, 4 F 3d 848 (10th Cir 1993),cert denied, 511 US 1031 (1994)
  • 14.Krebbs v. Rutgers, 797 F Supp 1246 (D NJ 1992)
  • 15.Gilbreath v. Guadalupe Hospital Foundation, Inc., 5 F3d 785 (5th Cir 1993)
  • 16.Dennie v. U. of Pittsburgh School of Med., 589 FSupp 348 (D VI 1984),aff’d, 770 F 2d 1068,cert denied, 474 US 849 (1985)
  • 17.Unt v. Aerospace Corp., 765 F 2d 1440 (9th Cir 1985)
  • 18.42 USC §§ 122101–122213, Pub. L No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990)
  • 19.Field MJ, editor. Institute of Medicine: Telemedicine: A Guide to Assessing Telecommunications in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.S 1360 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995)
  • 21.HR 435 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995)
  • 22.HR 3482 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996)
  • 23.§§ 1–101 to 9–106, 9 ULA 479–529 (1988)
  • 24.§ 1–101, 9 ULA 479
  • 25.Federal Privacy of Medical Information Act, HR 5935, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (1979) and 2d Sess. (1980)
  • 26.HR (3103) Pub. L No. 104-191, 110 Stat 1936
  • 27.Schwartz J: Health Insurance Reform Bill May Undermine Privacy of Patients’ Records. A23: Washington Post (August 4), 1996
  • 28.Bernstein v. United States Department of State, 945 F Supp 1279, 1282 (ND Cal 1996)
  • 29.22 CFR § 121.1, XIII(b)(1)
  • 30.22 CFR, Subchapter M, §§ 120–130 (1994)
  • 31.Backup Vault Inc: “Backup Vault Glossary.” 1996. http://backupvault.com/bvglos.htm
  • 32.American College of Radiology, Committee on Research and Technology Assessment of the Physics and Radiation Protection Commission: A Guide to Teleradiology Systems. Richmond, VA, ACR, 1993
  • 33.Cosman, et al: Evaluating Quality of Compressed Medical Images: SNR, Subjective Rating and Diagnostic Accuracy. Proceedings of the IEEEO: 919–932, 1994
  • 34.Aberle, et al. The effect of irreversible image compression on diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging. Invest Radiol. 1993;28:398–398. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199305000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yoshino, et al. Diagnostic performance of teleradiology in cervical spine fracture detection. Invest Radiol. 1992;27:55–55. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199201000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kondoh, et al. A comparison of conventional film screen radiography and hard copy of computed radiography in full and two-thirds sizes in detection of interstitial lung disease. J Digit Imaging. 1994;7:193–193. doi: 10.1007/BF03168539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rinde, et al. Telemedicine in Rural Norway. World Health Forum. 1993;14:71–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.American College of Radiology: ACR Standard of Teleradiology, Res. 21–1994. Standards 27, 1995
  • 39.Perednia, et al. Comparison of the clinical informativeness of photographs and digital imaging media with multiplechoice receiver operating characteristic analysis. Arch Dermatol. 1995;131:292–297. doi: 10.1001/archderm.131.3.292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Scannel KM, et al. Telemedicine: Past, Present, Future. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Forester T, Morrison P. Computer Ethics: Cautionary tales and ethical dilemmas in computing. 2nd ed. Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 1994. pp. 164–164. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gill CJ. Medical Expert Systems: Grappling with Issues of Liability. High Tech Law Journal. 1986;1:483–484. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Edmunds, RA: The Prentice Hall Guide to Expert Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988, p 28
  • 44.Waterman DA. A Guide to Expert Systems. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley; 1985. pp. 12–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Shortliffe EH. Computer Programs to Support Clinical Decision Making. JAMA. 1987;258:61–61. doi: 10.1001/jama.258.1.61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Computerized Studies for Clinical Decisionmaking AHCPR Research Activities. 1997;200:18–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Projects look at value of decision support software. Am Med News 40 (2):23, 1997
  • 48.Schwartz EI, Treece JB. Smart Programs Go to Work. Business Week. 1992;2:97–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jones v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 669 P 2d 744 (NM App 1983)
  • 50.Frye v. Medicare Glaser Corp., 219 Ill App 3d 931, 579 NE 2d 1255 (1991)
  • 51.BRS Software Products. http://iridium.nttc.ed. p/GLD5/telemedicine+/2
  • 52.TeleMed: A Joint Project of National Jewish Center for Immunology & Respiratory Medicine & Lois Alamos National Laboratory.http://www.acl.lanl.gov/sunrise/Medical/telemed.html (last updated 1/25/96)
  • 53.Berner, et al. Performance of Four Computer-Based Diagnostic Systems. New Engl J Med. 1994;330:1792–1792. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199406233302506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Horovits BL. Computer Software as a Good Under the U.C.C.: Taking a Byte Out of the Intangibility Myth. Boston University Law Review. 1985;65:129–129. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Black, Jackson and Simmons Ins. Brokerage, Inc. v. IBM, 109 Ill App3d 132, 440 NE 2d 282 (1982)
  • 56.Swartz D. Introducing DICOM 3.0. A Standard for Medical Imaging. 5 Telemedicine Today. 1997;5:24–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Weinberg DS. How is telepathology being used to improve patient care? Clin Chem. 1996;42:831–835. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Pendrak RF, Ericson RP: Telemedicine May Spawn Long Distance Lawsuits. National Underwriter (November 4):44–45, 1996
  • 59.Gaziano SG. Computer Malpractice—A New Tort on the Horizon? Rutgers Computer and Tech Law Journal. 1991;17:177–177. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gitlin JN. Understanding Teleradiology. Harrisburg, PA: Society for Computer Applications in Radiology; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Dunn, et al. An Evaluation of Four Telemedicine Systems for Primary Care. Health Care Services Research. 1977;12:19–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zhang Y, et al. First Trial of Home EKG and Blood Pressure Telemonitoring System in Macau. Telemed J. 1997;3:67–72. doi: 10.1089/tmj.1.1997.3.67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Porter v. Rosenberg, 650 So. 2d 79 (Fla App, 1995)
  • 64.Cardozo v. True, 342 So 2d 1053 (Fla App),cert denied, 353 So 2d 674 (Fla 1977)
  • 65.938 F 2d 1033 (9th Cir 1991)
  • 66.Aetna Casualty & Security Co. v. Jeppesen & Co., 642 F 2d 339 (9th Cir 1981).
  • 67.The American Law Institute: Restatement of the Law Third, in Restatement of Law, Torts: Product Liability, Tentative Draft No. 2, Section 4, Product Defectiveness, pp 154–156, 168, 169. (March 13, 1995)
  • 68.Godes JN. Developing a New Set of Liability Rules for a New Generation of Technology: Assessing Liability for Computer-Related Injuries in the Health Care Field. Computer Law J. 1987;7:517–517. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Dahm LL. An Innovative Theory of Recovery for Patients Injured Through Use or Misuse of Health Care Information Systems. J. Marshall J Computer and Info L. 1995;14:73–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Schleifer LA. Damage Awards and Computer Systems— Trends. Emory LJ. 1986;35:255–259. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 604 F 2d 737 (2d Cir 1979).
  • 72.Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC § 321 (h).
  • 73.21 USC § 360c(a).
  • 74.21 USC § 360k(a).
  • 75.116 S Ct 2240, 135 L Ed 20 700 (1996).
  • 76.21 USC § 360(h) and 21 CFR § 807.81(a).
  • 77.21 USC § 306j(g); 21 CFR §§ 812 and 813, particularly 812.1(a).
  • 78.Berish v. Richards Medical Co., 937 F Supp 181, 185 (ND NY 1976).
  • 79.Birmingham v. Fodor’s Travel Publications, Inc., 833 P 2d 70 (Hawaii 1992).
  • 80.Davis GG. Special Problems Involving Software Warranties and Indemnities for Mass-Distributed Software. Practising Law Institute/Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series. 1984;191:597–604. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Gemignani MC. Product Liability and Software. Rutgers Computer and Tech L J. 1981;8:173–173. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Brannigan VM, Dayhoff RE. Liability for Personal Injuries Caused by Defective Medical Computer Programs. Am J Law Med. 1981;7:123–126. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Freed RN. Products Liability in the Computer Age. Forum. 1977;12:461–461. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Maule MR. Applying Strict Products Liability to Computer Software. Tulsa L J. 1992;27:735–751. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Cole GS. Tort Liability for Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems. Computer L J. 1990;10:127–162. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Abbot v. American Cyanamid Co., 844 F 2d 1108 (4th Cir 1988).
  • 87.McMenamin, Joseph P., “Telemedicine: Technology and the Law.” For the Defense (July), 1997

Articles from Journal of Digital Imaging are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES