REASONS FOR NOT DETERMINING THE SEVERITY OF BODILY INJURIES IN VICTIMS WITH CAR INJURY ACCORDING TO THE RESULTS OF PRIMARY FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11603/bmbr.2706-6290.2020.3.11307Keywords:
forensic examination, severity of injuries, mechanical trauma of the lower extremities, car injuryAbstract
Summary. Determining the severity of injuries is the most common reason for carrying out forensic examination (FE) of a living person (victim, suspect, accused, witness etc.), which ranks first and is over 80 % of all expert work. Interpretation of injuries within the forensic examination is limited due to shortcomings in the assessment and description in the medical records of all injuries received by the victim.
The aim of the study – to learn a frequency and reasons for not determining the severity of bodily injuries during the primary forensic medical examinations of victims of road traffic accidents with mechanical injuries of the lower extremities.
Materials and Methods. Retrospective analysis and descriptive statistics of data from 170 primary forensic examinations of victims with car injury and mechanical damage to the lower extremities.
Results. The retrospective analysis of forensic examinations revealed a predominance of pedestrian injuries (135; 79.4 %). Car injury by the nature of injuries led to the formation of mostly polytrauma (93.5 %) with a predominance of combined injuries (72.9 %). Isolated fractures of long bones of the lower extremities were diagnosed mainly during pedestrian injury (10; 5.9 %) at low vehicle speeds. In the analyzed examinations severe bodily injuries were found in 18.2 %; bodily injuries of moderate severity – in 81.2 %; minor injuries – in 97.1 % of cases. The severity of one or more bodily injuries of various kinds was not established in 41.8 % of the initial forensic examination: in 7.1 % of cases with open fractures of long bones of the lower extremities; in 19.4 % – with closed fractures and/or bone dislocations of different segments of the musculoskeletal system; in 4.7% – with closed traumatic brain injury, moderate brain concussion; in 10.6 % – bruises of the soft tissues of the head and/or face, as well as the anterior abdominal wall.
Conclusions. Reasons for not determining the severity of bodily injuries: absence (19.4 %) and low quality (1.2 %) of radiographs; lack of medical documentation confirming the diagnosis of objective (4.7%) and relevant data in the medical history (10.6%). The inability to conduct an expert assessment of injuries according to medical records was accompanied by a decrease in the severity of injuries in the conclusions of the primary FE from severe to moderate in 12 (7.1%), from moderate to mild – in 6 (3.5%) cases.
References
Herasymenko OI, Antonov AG, Herasymenko KO. [Forensic examination of living persons]. In: Ed. by: Herasymenko OI. [Forensic medicine: a textbook for universities], 3rd ed. К.: КNТ; 2016. 630 p.
Krut MI, Zarafiants GN, Sashko SYu. [Forensic medical examination of victims, accused and other persons: a teaching aid]. St-Pb.: St. Petersburg. unbversity; 2014. 136 p.
[Forensic medical examination of victims, injured and others. In: Ed. in Chief: prof. Mishalov VD. Forensic medicine: electronic assistant]. Kyiv NMAPE named after PL Shchupyk. Available from: https://nmapo.edu.ua/s/np/k/sudovoi-medytsyny/pidruchnyky-ta-posibnyky/3535-elektronnij-pidruchnik-sudova-meditsina-za-zagalnoyu-redaktsieyu-profesora-v-d-mishalova
Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine № 6 of January 17, 1995 "Rules of forensic determination of the severity of injuries".
Payne-James J, Payne-James J.J, Hinchliffe J. Injury assessment, documentation, and interpretation. In: Stark M. (eds). Clinical Forensic Medicine. Humana Press; 2011; p. 127-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-258-8_4JJ
Payne-James J. Injury, fatal and nonfatal: Sharp and cutting-edge wounds. In: Eds in Chief: R. Byard, J Payne-James. Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2nd ed. Amsterdam:Elsevier, 2016; DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800034- 2.00223-8
Zavalniuk AH, Yukhymets IO, Kravets OF. [Illegality of determining the mechanism of injury by a doctor – a forensic expert]. Sud-med ekspert. 2016;2: 13-18. Ukrainian. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24061/2707-8728.2.2016.3
Mishalov VD, Tahaiev MM, Khyzhniak VV, Dunaiev OV, Morhun AO, Morhun OO. [Forensic description of injuries, the statute of limitations for their formation and healing: a textbook]. Kyiv NMAPE named after P.L. Shchupyk; 2018. Ukrainian.
Zavalniuk AH, Yukhymets IO, Kravets OF, Todosiy BV. [Evidential arguments in the forensic diagnosis of car injuries and its types]. Forensic examination. 2013;2:49-52.
Love JC, Wiersema JM. Skeletal Trauma: An Anthropological Review. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2016;6(3): 463-77. DOI: 10.23907/2016.047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23907/2016.047
Dempseya N, Blaub S. Evaluating the evidentiary value of the analysis of skeletal trauma in forensic research: A review of research and practice. Forensic Science International. 2020;307: 110140. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110140
