Medical Negligence claim anyone?

DiddyDave

DiddyDave

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,521
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

Just had a booking for photographing an arm for a Medical Negligence claim, arranged through a local firm of Solicitors

Thing is - they don't know how they want them presenting for their use !!!

Anyone had any experience of such and how they presented them for such a claim? I'm assuming nothing other than basic PP is allowed

Cheers

DD
 
full theatrical makeup - blood, bruising, bit of bone sticking out? :D

If I was a hotshot solicitor, I'd challenge any photo saying digital enhancement, so whatever you do, keep the original RAW and a original JPG so people can compare checksums. I'd also try and include some method of identifying the client and the date it was taken.
 
have you got access to a film camera?
chimp it in digital 'til you're happy with the results then take a couple on film - harder to tamper with
 
Dave

The only pp you would be able to do would be adjusting brightness and perhaps contrast. Nothing else, to be honest I wouldn't even do that, get it right in the camera.

You'll then need to provide the digital negative and probably a statement for clients. I would be tempted to buy a dedicated memory card for the job that you don't mind not being able to use for anything else.

There's no problem with using digital cameras for evidential work, I do it all the time and haven't been challenged on it yet, the key is to get the storage and continuity of your evidence right.

If you want help / assistance more advice with this I'd prefer to do it via PM

Mark
 
Police won't accept digital images from "the public" for anthing (I've tried), so I'd be very careful. Sounds like you could unwittingly become an "expert witness" & open to all kind of nastiness & accusations of enhancements from the defence teams...
Just be very wary is all.
 
Hmmm - may have to stand corrected re my comment above - I tried to submit digital evidence when a drunk driver trashed my car last year but they refused point blank to accept it, then pitched up with some silly p&s & asked me to take the pictures because no-one on-scene knew how to use it. This may be a different set of circumstances with different implications as maddogmark indicates.
 
I once did a forensics seminar day, but it was back in the days when film ruled. You need something to include in your photo that provides scale and colour. Match the size and colour in your print, sometimes B&W can be better. You must be able to take this item to court, and it needs to be made from plastic that does't expand or shrink. From film you would present the print, but you must have the neg in case the print is challenged (which it will). How digital changes things I don't know sorry.

Mike
 
My profession is no secret it's in my profile, I'd rather offer advice via PM as I don't want to compromise any case by discussing it publicly. I accept it's unlikely to happen, but better safe in these instances.:)
 
Unless things have changed, which is entirely possible, then criminal courts will only accept photographic evidence on film. The person actually producing the print(s) in evidence as exhibits (the photographer) will have to include in his statement the fact that the prints have been produced from unretouched negatives which are in and have remained in his possession since the shots were taken, to satisfy the court as to the integrity of the images and their admissabilty in evidence.

I did have quite a bit to do with Criminal Injuries Compensation hearings at one time, but these usually took place after any criminal matters had been dealt with and therefore any prints were available from the criminal matter and would have been taken in accordance with the court's requirements.

The claim in this case though will be before a civil court where I'm not absolutely sure what requirements will need to be satisfied, so I'd get your client to check with her solicitor or with the court office on this Dave.
 
Recently we were awarded an out of court settlement when our daughter suffered facial injuries following negligence at a nursery. On the strength of two photographs (digital/inkjet printer) Norwich Union paid up at the earliest opportunity. These pictures were done with a Pentax point & click job so I can't imagine any photographic evidence being dismissed out of hand.
 
Well on a practical note, these shots are likely to be used for just that - consideration of an out of court settlement.. this being a civil matter. In the event that it's actually contested in court then the easy thing is for the claimant just to show the arm to the court, which is better than any photographic evidence ;)
 
I might be wrong but I thought that digital images were allowed as they are technically computer records and under s.69 of PACE computer records are permitted as long as they are accompanied by a statement from the computer operator or person responsible for the computer, the statement has to be along the lines of "the computer system was operating properly and the files had not been altered". When I was working as a Telecomms Fraud Investigator we used this all the time (about 5/6 years ago) but I do remember hearing that the s.69 statement was no longer a requirement. You might want to check this.

I know there is a TP member on here who I believe uses digital imaging in a law enforcement environment but I won't mention his name in case his occupation is not common knowledge. I can PM him if you want.
 
That's quite possibly right Colin, although to my knowledge, it only refers to production of data on computers other than photographs - accounts etc in fraud cases.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is only applicable to criminal cases anyway... this one is purely a civil matter.
 
CT said:
That's quite possibly right Colin, although to my knowledge, it only refers to production of data on computers other than photographs - accounts etc in fraud cases.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is only applicable to criminal cases anyway... this one is purely a civil matter.
Click to expand...

I thought it referred to any computer files or data that was required in evidence. :shrug:

This might be a civil matter but it wouldn't do any harm to use best practice standards for evidence, better too much than too little.
 
Too many people watch films here.

I was a Director of a legal firm for over 11 years and one of my remits was to kit our solicitors with digital photography aid.

A "hotshot" solicitor may well argue that a digital photograph can be tampered with but, and no disrespect to Dave, the mere fact that you have been awarded the comission without the solicitor asking for a portfolio of your track record with medical negligence cases tends to suggest that the photo is a kick start to the matter (legal term for job) and not the ultimate evidence reliance.

The case probably won't even go to a high court where the image would be judged and ruled - especially if the case is reliant on a photograph - the plaintiff or defendant (whomever your image represents) would pull out before that unless they had other hard evidence.
 
It's not as though the photograph(s) are of some horrific stab wound as it was months/years ago where the integrity of the image would obviously be important, it's a shot of the injury as it looks today which will no doubt be supported by medical evidence in the form of doctor's statements anyway. The court (if it gets that far) have the option to look at the arm itself, so I'm inclined to think the shots will only be relevant to decisions between the parties on an out of court settlement.
 
When we ran our wedding and portrait business, a neighbour of ours asked me to take some pictures of his injuries caused when he was knocked off bike.

The sols asked for the original files, a printed copy and and letter from myself on our headed paper. I didn't use flash, or post process the picture either.

The neighbour got his money etc, and I wasn't called in or contacted any more about it.
 
Wow all

Thanks for the input - I've been shooting ever since the post and haven't had chance to look until now

Lots of interesting comments, think I'd better pm maddog and depending on that advice, may well tell the solicitors to sod off!

Cheers for now

DD
 
There is no problem with digital images in court. I was in court this morning for a civil law case (application for an ASBO ) and photos were accepted without question just as they are in criminal cases.

If the other side dispute what is shown in the photos they can call the photographer to give evidence. I have only seen this once in about 10 years of court work. He was asked "did you manipulate this image in any way?". he answered "no". end of togs evidence.
Its then up to the JPs/judge/tribunal/whatever to decide who they believe.
 
Ive been persuing a Personal injury claim on behalf of my son for the last few years.
He/we, have just this week received a letter asking this ...

"Firstly, I will need a set of photographs taken of your scarring. This is because the value of scarring depends uopn the appearance upon close distances and from slightly further away. It is also dependent on colour, thickness and whether the scar is flat or raised. Please arrange to take several photographs of your scarring from different angles and different distances away so I am able to accurately value the same".

Thats the sum total of the letter dedicated to the mention of photographs. He hasnt asked for pro-photos to be taken, or anything outside of the above.
Ill keep in mind that they may ask for original files later ... better not bother with the PS skills! :lol:
 
I have no experience in this area but I would support JohnW's statement as I remember a post similar to this in another forum where 'togs who were experienced in providing evidence regarding medical injury cases responded and the general gist was that digital was acceptable if the photographer was trustworthy and could testify (or provide written statement) that the the images were untouched and a true accurate representation of the injury (OK the value of trustworthy is ultimately judged by the court).

What was clear from that post that although photoshop was a clear nono it was common practice to light the injury to make it appear at it's "best" (e.g. harsh lighting slightly to one side especially with a raised scar). It was also expected that the photgrapher would ask for evidence of identity and include the basic details in their statement provided with the photograph e.g. recording reference numbers from photo driving licence / passport / utilitity bill / bank statement etc.
 
digital has been admissible for years. I do about one of these per year.

In most cases, I do a Witness Statement to go with the prints but I have been asked for an Affidavit in the past. I produce each print at about A5 but positioned centrally on A4 with identifying print making reference to the matter and witness statement (or exhibit details if Affi).

You can only do what has been requested by the solicitor. If it appears that the solicitor doesn't know what they are doing then - that'll be the case. They will be even more impressed with what you produce - as long as you complete the mission as requested.

My only difficulty with these has been in trying to show scars that have had a chance to partially heal. One recent case involved some huge scars down a bloke's arm. Unfortunately, I was tasked to take photos about 8 months too late. The scars were quite apparent when viewed with a Mk I eyeball but I couldn't get them to stand out on the viewfinder. In the end I took the bloke outside - bright sunny day - and stood him in some shade and it worked.
 
p.s. ask the client how many copies. Then do two extra sets. They'll probably request three but need four or five.
 
Reading 2blue's last post has me a bit worried really (jumping in again here, sorry Dave).
My son's scars are from hip to knee. They/it (same scar opened up twice) are now over 5 years old, so obviously fully healed and, very pale in colour.
Any ideas how I can show a scar of this age to its best/worst advantage?
 
DiddyDave said:
Thanks for that guys - most useful

Should be getting him in today all being well - hope the injury isn't too gory or I may be photography an arm covered in puke !!!

Not keen on squeamish stuff

DD
Click to expand...

Good luck with it DD:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top