Cleareview’s unique HIPAA-compliant blinding process eliminates radiologist bias when reviewing diagnostic imaging for litigation or quality assurance
Unbiased Results
Whenever a radiologist is handed an exam by a lawyer, they know that the story doesn’t end well. The task of finding the error is fundamentally different than that of the original radiologist, who is looking for presence or absence of abnormality.
Cleareview eliminates this bias by blinding the expert to the nature of the exam. By placing the contentious exam in a series of otherwise typical exams, which may be normal or abnormal, the radiologist does not know which exam is at issue. The ‘lawyer effect’ is eliminated.
Cleareview’s unique HIPAA-compliant imaging archive has been engaged in over 200 actions throughout the United States, and has both improved bargaining position in settlement negotiations, and been a factor in obtaining judgements for every one of our clients whose cases have gone to verdict.
Transparent and Trustworthy
Cleareview’s transparent processes meet any procedural challenge. Our imaging archive is HIPAA-compliant. Experts are all board-certified in Diagnostic Radiology and experienced in the particular area of each case
Ten radiologists review your exam in the course of their daily work, providing blinded second opinions of your client’s exam
Three experts review a set including your client’s exam and report for adherence to the standard of care, and are available for further consultation
One expert reviews your client’s exam in a larger set of exams, providing interpretation and assessment of the original report
Empowering Fairness For All
“The Cleareview was quite helpful because it gave us a standard of care defense which likely played a role in plaintiff’s decision to dismiss my client. Thank you for your valuable assistance.”
“Very helpful to the case and setting up expert testimony as unbiased.”
“Cleareview was very valuable to this case, as it was a claim of missed appendicitis. Our expert did a blind review and agreed with my radiologist client that appendicitis could not be seen on the films (compared to plaintiff’s expert who did not do a blind review).”
“Notwithstanding the outcome, the blind review was quite valuable. As I recall, the majority of the blind reviewers also did not identify the recurrent cancer, although several did. However, the process was educational for us and helped us shape our arguments in the case.”
“Blind review was instrumental in ascertaining that this allegedly “missed” finding, when viewed prospectively, was indeed subtle and very difficult to identify which was useful toward demonstrating that the care provided was within the applicable standard.”
“Cleareview has my strongest endorsement. As a litigator who frequently tries medical malpractice cases, I can directly attribute some of my successful trial outcomes to the use of Cleareview in radiology cases.”