0:00

With reviewing cases, uh, my tips are, you know,

0:03

accept defense and plaintiff cases.

0:05

It will help your credibility at trial

0:07

and avoid the possibility that you,

0:09

your credibility will be impugned by the opposing counsel.

0:13

Read the cases blindly

0:15

with the same information the radiologist had the time.

0:18

So if a legal firm contacts me and says, Dr.

0:23

Usam, we'd like you to review this case

0:25

of Dalbert versus Ssom, in which, um, it appears

0:29

that a stroke was missed on the initial CT scan,

0:32

would you be able to review that CT scan?

0:35

I say, I'm sorry, I can't take the case.

0:38

I only review cases in a blinded fashion

0:40

with no clinical history other than what was

0:43

provided to the radiologist at the time

0:45

that they interpreted the case.

0:47

So, for me, any clinical information

0:51

that might sway me

0:52

and bias me in the evaluation of the case,

0:55

I defer on those cases to other people.

0:58

And I, I make recommendations.

1:00

I want nothing other than

1:02

what the radiologist had at the time

1:04

that they interpreted the study as far

1:07

as the indication on the study.

1:08

Now, sometimes the legal firm will say,

1:10

this is not a case against the radiologist.

1:12

This is a case against the neurosurgeon.

1:14

And there was an incident that happened in the, um, or,

1:17

and we're wondering whether there's spinal cord

1:20

damage post-op.

1:22

I said, I still say I only do my cases in a blinded fashion.

1:26

Uh, even if it's unrelated to the radiologist's role,

1:30

I don't want to know that the patient had

1:32

a spinal cord injury when I interpret the scans.

1:36

So people do it different ways.

1:39

That's my way I, I sort of review my cases.

1:43

The vast majority of the cases

1:44

that I have reviewed are not about the radiologists,

1:48

uh, being negligent.

1:50

It's most commonly about an untoward event

1:53

that happened post-op

1:55

or intra-op, et cetera,

1:56

where the radiologist is not even a defendant.

1:59

They just wanna know what are the damages?

2:01

You know, can you look at this brain

2:02

and tell us where the strokes are for this damages for,

2:06

you know, uh, an ed doctor that's being sued, for example.

2:12

So, from my perspective,

2:14

it's just a little different in that regard.

2:16

Um, when I work with physicians, I, I'm asking

2:21

for an objective opinion,

2:23

but I view it as a little different, which is,

2:26

if you're receiving a call

2:28

or reach out from a law firm to review images

2:32

or review a case, you already know there's a problem.

2:35

So it, it doesn't matter to me.

2:38

And I, I deal with a different bias, which is

2:41

I have far fewer, uh, physicians who will work

2:44

with the plaintiff side.

2:46

Um, it's getting better, but it's still there.

2:49

And so I am very upfront with them

2:52

that I am a plaintiff's attorney.

2:54

I'd like them to review records

2:55

and give me their honest, objective opinion.

2:59

And I, I look at that as, and,

3:02

and we talk about this when I prepare them for deposition,

3:05

that you're gonna be asked about this,

3:07

but you're a radiologist, you're a professional,

3:09

you're doing your job, and you can objectively look at

3:12

images and give me an opinion.

3:14

And so we, Dave and I differ a little bit on that.

3:17

I don't think that it's, uh, necessary to, um,

3:21

have blinded opinions, uh, you know, most of the time.

3:26

Thank you. Well, what I would say in response is I give a

3:29

blinded opinion at the outset,

3:32

and then I ask for the information that's relevant.

3:35

And some, like I said,

3:37

sometimes it's not about the radiologist's

3:39

interpretation of the study.

3:40

It's about, you know, causation or damages.

3:44

And then once they give me some of the history, um, I give,

3:48

I give a different opinion, uh, sometimes, um,

3:51

based on the what's

3:52

provided in that it's not a radiology miss

3:56

that is being disputed.