As artificial intelligence tools become embedded in clinical workflows — from imaging analysis to predictive risk models — legal accountability remains largely unchanged: physicians remain the focal point of malpractice liability.
Despite more than 1,300 FDA-authorized AI-enabled devices and sharply rising physician adoption, U.S. courts have yet to issue a malpractice verdict centered on AI itself. Legal experts note that traditional standards of care still apply. If harm occurs, the central question remains whether the clinician acted as a “reasonably prudent provider” — not whether the algorithm failed.
This creates a tension for physicians:
- Overreliance on flawed AI may be criticized.
- Ignoring widely adopted AI tools may eventually be seen as negligent.
In gastroenterology, AI-assisted polyp detection offers a case study in evolving standards. Evidence suggests detection rates improve by roughly 25%, positioning AI as a safety enhancement rather than a replacement for physician judgment. But if such tools become guideline-endorsed, liability expectations could shift.
Meanwhile, regulatory activity is accelerating at the state level, creating a patchwork of compliance requirements. Professional bodies such as the AMA are emphasizing “augmented intelligence” governance frameworks that prioritize clinician oversight, local validation, and continuous monitoring.