Blogs

Intro

In March 2024, a chest pain triage tool deployed by a hospital in Washington State failed to flag a patient who later suffered a silent heart attack. The error was traced to an AI algorithm misclassifying the case as low-risk, affecting the ER team's response times. While details remain private, the incident is cited in a March 2024 POLITICO investigation as a “warning sign” for hospitals relying on AI-assisted triage and lighting legal scrutiny for similar systems.

This isn’t a distant concern. As hospitals expand AI use in 2025, legal exposure grows too—not just for physicians, but for hospitals, software vendors, and potentially the AI itself.

AI Is Already in Hospitals — Quietly Running the Show

Today’s hospital AI systems are everywhere:

• Triage algorithms that prioritize ER patients
• Predictive tools for sepsis or readmission risk
• Imaging A.I. for X-rays and CT scans
• Decision support in medication dosing and discharge
• Robotic surgery assistance

But when these “black box” tools err, the mistakes can be swift, silent—and hard to trace.

Emerging Legal Quagmires around Liability

A March 2024 POLITICO report explains: “When a doctor follows an AI suggestion, is it reliance—or negligence?”

The questions are multiplying:

• Who’s responsible—the doctor who followed it, the hospital that implemented it, or the developer who created it?
• Can the black-box nature of AI tools be admitted in court?
• Will hospital oversight shift liability even if AI tool fails?

Real Incidents Fueling the Concern

• Machine-learning triage in the UK missed ectopic pregnancies
• Radiology AI vs. human radiologist: one case flagged malignancies as “negative”—a near-miss triggering false assurance
• POLITICO’s early-2024 coverage included interviews with hospital risk officers and insurers calling for caution

Why This Matters for Trial Attorneys

• 1. Hidden Red Flags - AI systems leave unique trails—“AI Alert Activated” or “Model Score: 0.42”—that need uncovering early.
• 2. Expert Witness Needs Shift - You’ll require experts who understand AI workflows, algorithm updates, and clinical application contexts.
• 3. Understanding the “Black Box” - Stanford’s St. Tech Law Review warns courts aren’t equipped to interpret black-box AI in liability cases.
• 4. Informed Consent Gaps - Patients rarely know AI is part of their care—this ignorance may support claims of inadequate disclosure.
• 5. Chain of Command Complexity - Was it the physician, the hospital, or the vendor? AI introduces serial lines of potential liability.

What to Watch and Prepare For

• Ask about AI tools at intake — “Were you told any part of your care was AI‑assisted?”
• Request system logs and version histories — these entries can form the backbone of cross-examination
• Use AI-savvy medical experts — clinicians familiar with algorithmic decision-making
• Anticipate vendor disclaimers — prepare liability narratives that include enterprise and product levels

Closing Insight

AI won’t replace doctors... but it could redefine how we litigate malpractice. As errors race under the radar of automation, trial attorneys must adapt:

• Learn to ask the right questions
• Know what tech to pull
• Translate algorithmic failure into human accountability

Because when the machine speaks, we must still demand who’s behind the voice.