Abstract
I. The Electrocardiogram … A. Admissibility in Evidence of Electrocardiogram … B. Physician Cannot Testify as to Electrocardiogram without Producing It … C. Electrocardiographic Recordings and Interpreting … D. Physician Who Testifies as to Electrocardiogram Does Not Have to Have Made It … E. Value of Electrocardiogram Lies in Plurality for Purpose of Comparison … F. Clinical Correlation
II. The Myelogram … A. Attending Physician May Testify as to Pathology Revealed by Myelogram … B. No Introduction in Evidence of Myelogram after Hearing or Trial … C. May Employee be Compelled to Undergo Myelogram?
III. The Aortogram … A. Dangers in Aortography … B. Cause of Paraplegia following Aortogram … C. Who Performs Aortography … D. Injuries following Attempted Aortogram … E. Physician’s Negligent Acts in Attempting Aortography
IV. The Electroencephalogram … A. Admissibility of Electroencephalograms in Evidence … B. Retroactive Admissibility … C. Foundations Must Be Laid … D. Electroencephalograms as Basis for Expert Opinion … E. Conflicting Interpretations of Electroencephalograms … F. Property in Electroencephalogram
Recommended Citation
Howard Newcomb Morse,
Legal Aspects of Certain Common Medical Diagnostic Devices,
46 Neb. L. Rev. 798
(1967)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol46/iss4/4