When a family practitioner or hospitalist gets back a radiologist’s report, it is natural to look first for the findings related to the reason for the patient’s referral. But a physician’s duty doesn’t stop there. 

In a case that had garnered interest across the country, a California appellate court has held that a defendant in a medical professional liability trial may introduce evidence of future health insurance benefits available to the injured plaintiff.

In London’s Underground transit system, riders are warned to “Mind the Gap.” In other words, step carefully when going between the platform and railcar. “Mind the Gap” is also good advice to medical offices moving from paper to electronic records.

It’s a common scenario: A primary care physician refers his or her patient to a specialist for an acute condition. The specialist works up the patient and prescribes medication, for which the primary care physician is expected to issue refills. Who is responsible for monitoring the medication?

The California Court of Appeal has offered a fresh explanation on how courts determine the legal date of an “injury” when the alleged medical error is a failure to diagnose.