Medical imaging has made a major contribution to cerebral dysfunction due to inherited diseases, as well as injuries sustained with modern living, such as car accidents, falling down, and work-related injuries. These injuries, up until the introduction of sensitive techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), were overlooked because of heavy reliance on structural imaging techniques such as MRI and CT. These techniques are extremely insensitive for dysfunction caused by such underlying disorders. We believe that the use of these highly powerful functional neuroimaging technologies, such as PET, has substantially improved our ability to assess these patients properly in the clinical setting, to determine their natural course, and to assess the efficacy of various interventional detections. As such the contribution from the evolution of PET technology has substantially improved our knowledge and ability over the past 3 decades to help patients who are the victims of serious deficiencies due to these injuries. In particular, in recent years the use of PET/CT and soon PET/MRI will provide the best option for a structure-function relationship in these patients. We are of the belief that the clinical effectiveness of PET in managing these patients can be translated to the use of this important approach in bringing justice to the victims of many patients who are otherwise uncompensated for disorders that they have suffered without any justification. Therefore, legally opposing views about the relevance of PET in the court system by some research groups may not be justifiable. This has proven to be the case in many court cases, where such imaging techniques have been employed either for criminal or financial compensation purposes in the past 2 decades.

No abstract

No abstract

Chief of European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging owing to the unexplained close similarity of some passages to parts of a previous publication [Rushing SE, Langleben DD. Relative function: Nuclear brain imaging in United States courts. J Psychiatry Law 2011; 39 (winter): 567-93].

No abstract