Muelling, Rudolph J., Jr.

English

University of Kentucky

Kentucky Law JournalVolume 55 | Issue 3 Article 121967Doctors, Lawyers, and the Courts by James R.RichardsonRudolph J. Muelling Jr.University of KentuckyFollow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kljRight click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefitsyou.This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky LawJournal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu.Recommended CitationMuelling, Rudolph J. Jr. (1967) "Doctors, Lawyers, and the Courts by James R. Richardson," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 55 : Iss. 3 ,Article 12.Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol55/iss3/12Book ReviewsDocroRs, LAwYERs, AND THE CouRTs. By James R. Richardson.Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson Company, 1965. Pp. 625. $17.50.Professor Richardson has indeed done an admirable job in thiscompendium of law, technique, and appellate opinions as to howMedicine and the Law are irrevocably intertwined. This is emphasizedin his statement from the Preface, "[T] here is a necessary overlappingof the legitimate functions of the two professions." The book haslogically been divided into three parts:I. Medicolegal RelationshipsII. Methods and Elements of MedicineProof: DamagesIII. Socio-Mental Illness and Antisocial BehaviorThe chapter on "Regulations of the Medical Profession; Duties andLiabilities" should be required reading for all physicians whosemedical curriculum did not include Legal Medicine. Physicians andattorneys alike should read the ten propositions listed under un-warranted malpractice suits. Adherence to these will tend to curbunwarranted malpractice suits and will improve the relationship be-tween the two professions. Even greater improvement of professionalrelationships will ensue if attorneys use the ten facts listed underattorney's obligation to the physician in litigation, and if physicianslikewise use the ten facts listed under physician's obligation to the at-torney. A smoother social administration of justice will follow andold areas of contention between attorneys and physicians could bewiped away.In my own opinion, as the law becomes more specialized, i.e., intofields of specialized competence, we will see the development ofspecific areas where the physician can be helpful to the attorney:1. Assessment of medical facts, i.e., whether the attorney has a case,based on medical fact.2. Treating physician.3. Medicolegal dissection of medical facts cases-areas where strong,areas where weak, what the opponents will emphasize, etc., even tothe point of posing possible questions to be used in both direct andcross-examination. Thus the physician may sit at counsels table andBooK REvmwsfeed questions during the trial. With medical experts on the stand,some attorneys believe that the mere presence of a physician atcounsel's table exerts a good effect.4. The medical expert.These functions will probably be filled by different physicians. Cer-tainly the same physician could not -function both as number threeand number four.A few areas of the text should be amplified to insure clarity andunderstanding, for example, the matter of anesthesiologists andanesthetists, discussed in § 1.2d. The former is an M.D. who has takena residency in anesthesia and has taken the Boards in Anesthesia. Thelatter is usually a nurse who has taken training under the supervisionof an anesthesiologist. Since their training and competence are dif-ferent, their liabilities are different. Usually when an anesthesiologistis giving an anesthetic and some untoward reaction to the anestheticoccurs, the responsibility rests with this properly licensed medicalspecialist. However, where an anesthetist gives the anesthetic undersomeone's direction, i.e., the surgeon performing the operation, theresponsibility rests with the surgeon. To further complicate the situa-tion, in many larger institutions, the anesthetist will be giving theanesthetic under the direction of the anesthesiologist, the latter super-vising several anesthetists at once. Here the responsibility rests withthe anesthesiologist.Also, the matter of toxicologist performing an autopsy and thentestifying on it (§16.2) would probably be allowed only in Alabamaand Georgia where the law sets up a state toxicology system withPh.D. toxicologists doing autopsies. In other jurisdictions, this wouldbe considered the practice of medicine.Finally, the proposed Medicolegal Statute in § 7.6 which becamelaw in Tennessee in 1961 has several serious drawbacks and shouldnot be considered a model statute. Some of these are:1. The District Attorney General is given authority to order anautopsy when recommended by the County Coroner and theCounty Medical Examiner. Requiring the concurrence of threepersons to obtain an autopsy seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Theresponsibility to order an autopsy should rest in the properlyconstituted medicolegal authority.2. The District Attorney General is required to notify the family ofthe impending autopsy. Such notice is to be served and returnedwithin 24 hours. The autopsy is to be performed on receipt of theKENTUcKY LAW JOURN[ALreturn, and if there has been no return within 24 hours, the autopsyshall be performed.No one would disagree with the notification of the family andthe fact that it is a Coroner's case and thus falls under the pur-view of society as a whole. The family has no jurisdiction in aCoroner's case and it seems unjustifiable to hold an autopsy inabeyance in a suspected homicide while someone chases relativesin Alaska or the West Coast. It seems senseless since the autopsywill be done whether or not the relatives are found.3. Since it is based on a county system, it is impractical for a statewith as many counties as Kentucky. For Kentucky, the DistrictMedicolegal Officer working with the coroners of several countiesor several Medicolegal Officers working with the coroner of onecounty (Jefferson for example) is considered a better system. Sucha system was actually presented to the last General Assembly ofthe Commonwealth of Kentucky."And if this book aids physicians in better understanding the rolethey play in litigation, and is useful to attorneys in their role as ad-vocates it will have accomplished the author's basic purposes." In myopinion, the author's basic purpose has been very ably accomplished.Rudolph J. Muelling, Jr., M.D.** Professor of Pathology andDirector, Division of Legal Medicineand ToxicologyUniversity of Kentucky Medical CenterLAWYEis' ETmcs: A SUaVEY OF TiE NEW YoRx Crry BAR. By JeromeE. Carlin. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966. Pp. 267. $6.75.This book reports the results of a 1960 study conducted by Dr.Carlin, a sociologist with an L L.B., and his associates into the ethicalbeliefs and conduct of the practicing lawyers of the New York Citybar and the influences upon ethical and unethical behavior of theselawyers. Basically, the book is a statistical presentation built around143 statistical "tables" presenting the results of various aspects of thestudy. Written in the jargon of the sociologist, it is difficult reading.The study, conducted under a Columbia Law School program, con-sisted of interviews with some 800 lawyers (out of approximately17,000) in private parctice in two of the New York City boroughs,Manhattan and Bronx.[Vol. 55,

Doctors, Lawyers, and the Courts by James R. Richardson

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2914&amp;context=klj

Doctors, Lawyers, and the Courts by James R. Richardson

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky