Question

In cases of malpractice involving "res ipsa loquitur", who has the burden of proving the physician's negligence and innocence, and is the physician bound by patient-physician confidentiality?

1) The patient has the burden of proving the physician's negligence
2) The physician has the burden of proving his or her innocence
3) The physician is not bound by patient-physician confidentiality
4) All of the above
5) None of the above

Answer 1

In cases of 'res ipsa loquitur', the physician usually has the burden of proving that there was no negligence, but still remains bound by patient-physician confidentiality. Option 5 is the correct answer.

Step-by-step explanation:

In cases involving the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which translates to 'the thing speaks for itself,' the burden of proof may shift from the plaintiff to the defendant. This means that, under certain circumstances, the patient does not have the burden of proving the physician's negligence because it is presumed by the nature of the incident, and instead, the physician has the burden of proving that there was no negligence (option 2). Regarding confidentiality, the physician is still bound by patient-physician confidentiality, even in cases of malpractice, unless a specific legal exception applies (option 5 is therefore the correct choice). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides strict guidelines on the protection of health information, which includes maintaining the confidentiality of patient records. Therefore, even during legal disputes surrounding malpractice, the restriction of sharing confidential information without the patient's consent stands.