Question by  ltdan12 (38)

Who has the burden of proof in medical malpractice?

I thought the plaintiff always had the burden of proof.


Answer by  DevoutCatalyst (441)

The plaintiff has the burden of proof. Any negligence or complaint against the doctor needs to be upheld. The doctor needs merely to represent and defend himself which is what they're unions and legal teams are for. Nothing happens without an accusation unless an internal investigation is the catalyst.


Answer by  LadyLawyer (325)

The plaintiff has the burden of proof. Typically, in fact, the plaintiff must find two doctors which agree with his contention before he can even file a case. Then the plaintiff will be allowed to go forward.


Answer by  epglaw (553)

The Plaintiff carries the burden to prove the doctor deviated from acceptable medical standards of case found in the local community, before a jury can conclude medical malpractice occured.


Answer by  Mary (2095)

It is more complicated. The plaintiff does have the burden to prove the case by a prepoderance of the evidence, meaning 51%. But there are also legal assumptions of proof.


Answer by  Roland27 (16334)

You both kind of do. It is your job to prove the Doctor screwed up and it's his job to prove he's innocent.

You have 50 words left!