What is the standard of proof in a medical malpractice case?

The standard of proof in a medical malpractice case in California is called the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This means that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must show that it is “more likely than not” that the defendant was negligent or that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injury. This is a lower standard than the one applied in criminal cases (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) and is significantly different from the “clear and convincing evidence” standard normally seen in civil cases. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant’s negligence more likely than not caused the plaintiff’s injury. This means that the plaintiff’s evidence must be more convincing than the defendant’s. The plaintiff’s evidence must show that the defendant deviated from the expected medical standard of care and that the deviation more likely than not caused the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff must also provide evidence that he or she suffered actual damages, such as medical bills or lost wages. In some cases, a plaintiff may use the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself.” Under this doctrine, a plaintiff can prove his or her case without providing any evidence of negligence. In these cases, the plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred if the defendant had acted with reasonable care. In conclusion, the standard of proof in a medical malpractice case in California is the preponderance of the evidence standard. This means that the plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant’s negligence more likely than not caused the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff may also use the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to prove his or her case without providing any evidence of negligence.

What is the standard of proof in a medical malpractice case?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts