Custom medical illustrations in personal injury cases

If a lawyer commissions a picture of a client's injury, couldn't that picture make the injury look worse than it really is? That's an immediate concern I have about custom medical illustrations. But we need to find out which objections the author actually addresses and how the author answers them.

The first objection is about whether these pictures are necessary. Opponents say that most injuries are generic: familiar forces cause familiar damage, such as fractures or whiplash. A textbook picture should usually be enough. Notice the exception for unusual injuries. These opponents aren't saying a custom illustration could never be useful; they're questioning its general use.

The second paragraph reaches the concern I was expecting: bias. A picture made for one side of a lawsuit might misrepresent the injury. Some lawyers apparently hope a convincing illustration can do the work of an expert they haven't been able to find.

Can they really replace the expert with a picture? The author's answer is no. For the custom illustration to be admitted, a medical expert must testify to its accuracy. The picture doesn't get around the need for supporting expert testimony. That is the safeguard the author gives, rather than a claim that an illustrator could never make a misleading image.

The third paragraph makes the objection more subtle. What if every detail is technically accurate, but the emphasis or coloring still creates a distorted impression? That's different from simply drawing a false injury. I can understand why someone might worry about how a true image is presented.

The author responds that professional medical illustrators seek objective accuracy and avoid inflammatory devices, sometimes even leaving out color. Then we get an important distinction between the two kinds of pictures: their audiences need different information. A medical student needs the extensive detail in a textbook. A judge or jury needs the facts relevant to this injury and this case.

So leaving something out doesn't automatically make the image deceptive. Imagine trying to understand a broken bone while looking at a picture crowded with veins and arteries. Those extra details might distract from the fracture. Removing them can help a nonspecialist see the relevant damage clearly. The point isn't that textbook images are inaccurate; they were designed for a different job.

The final paragraph adds the positive reason for these custom images. They translate information from the patient's scans and medical records into something the audience can see. An expert's technically precise description may still be hard for a juror to turn into a mental picture. A visual explanation can make that same information understandable.

That's the useful version of “a picture is worth a thousand words.” The image supports the explanation; it doesn't replace the expert. I started by worrying about misleading pictures, but the author's position is favorable: there are accuracy safeguards, and relevant visual details can communicate what technical words alone may not. Our main point should capture that defense without claiming that every custom illustration is perfect.