Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming part of everyday medical practice—from diagnostic algorithms that analyze X-rays to chatbots that triage patient symptoms. But when AI leads to an error, the question is clear: who’s responsible—the provider or the machine?
For brokers serving allied health professionals and independent practices, understanding this evolving liability landscape is crucial. Even as AI promises efficiency and improved outcomes, it also introduces new legal exposures that traditional malpractice policies must address.
AI in Healthcare: A New Player, Same Expectations
While technology is transforming care delivery, the legal expectations placed on clinicians haven’t changed. Courts are consistently holding providers accountable for how they use AI, not the AI itself. The core message: AI doesn’t replace clinical judgment—it amplifies the need for it.
Whether it’s a diagnostic tool missing a tumor or a robotic surgery system glitching mid-procedure, providers are expected to supervise, verify, and override when necessary. Blindly following an AI recommendation? That’s a liability risk.
Case Spotlight
One of the most instructive legal cases involved a cardiac diagnostic tool used during a stress test. A patient died, allegedly due to misinterpretation of AI-generated results.
The outcome? The physicians were not shielded by the software’s involvement. The court ruled they could still be held liable under standard malpractice law. Meanwhile, the software developer was not found directly responsible, since the physicians retained ultimate authority over care.
This case, and others like it, send a clear message:
Using AI doesn’t transfer liability. It increases the importance of using it correctly.
Automation Bias: A Growing Risk Factor
One of the biggest threats in AI-assisted care is automation bias—the tendency to trust an algorithm over one’s own clinical instincts.
For example:
• A radiologist skips reviewing a scan because the AI flagged it as “normal”
• A nurse practitioner relies on chatbot triage and delays an urgent referral
In both scenarios, a court will likely side with the patient if harm occurs. Providers are still held to the standard of care expected of a competent human—not a machine.
GET THE SUMMIT
Sign up for news and stuff all about the stuff you wanna know about in your sector twice a month.
