AI in Healthcare: Who Is Legally Liable When It Goes Wrong?

An AI system flags a scan as normal. A physician accepts its assessment. Months later, the patient learns that the scan contained signs of a serious illness. If that delay causes harm, who is responsible: the physician, the hospital, the software developer, or some combination of them?

Artificial intelligence is becoming part of everyday medical decisions, but it does not make accountability disappear. For healthcare leaders and legal professionals, the challenge lies in understanding how familiar duties of care, product safety rules, and patient privacy protections apply to unfamiliar technology. Keep reading to explore what the law currently addresses, where uncertainty remains, and what organizations can do to reduce risk.

The Current State of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Hospitals and clinicians use AI-enabled tools to interpret medical images, identify patterns in patient records, support treatment planning, and monitor patients for signs of deterioration. Some tools provide a second opinion; others prioritize cases for review or automate a narrowly defined task. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains a list of AI-enabled medical devices it has authorized for use in healthcare, illustrating the range of clinical applications already subject to its oversight.¹

The phrase “qualified health AI” is not a universal federal certification. More useful considerations include whether a particular tool has been evaluated for its intended clinical use, whether FDA authorization is required and has been obtained, and whether the organization has assessed its performance in the patients and setting where it will be deployed.

Even a well-tested algorithm can miss unusual presentations, reflect gaps in its training data, or produce results that clinicians interpret incorrectly. Performance may also change when a tool is used with different equipment, populations, or workflows. A system that assists clinical judgment should not be mistaken for a guarantee of clinical accuracy.

Navigating the Regulation of AI in Healthcare

The regulation of AI in healthcare is not governed by one comprehensive federal statute. Instead, several existing frameworks apply according to a tool’s purpose and use. The FDA regulates AI software that meets the definition of a medical device and falls within its oversight. Other tools, including some administrative and general-purpose applications, may not require FDA premarket authorization.¹

For certain certified electronic health record technologies, the federal Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability (HTI-1) rule establishes transparency and risk-management requirements for predictive decision support interventions supplied by health IT developers. These provisions address matters such as information about a tool’s development and risks, but they are not a blanket approval system for every clinical algorithm.²

Healthcare AI regulation in 2026 also reflects continuing attention to how software changes after deployment. FDA guidance on predetermined change control plans explains how manufacturers can propose, validate, and assess certain future changes to AI-enabled medical devices as part of a marketing submission. Guidance recommendations are not themselves binding legal requirements unless they restate applicable law.³

Rather than simply asking whether a product uses AI, legal professionals and administrators must ask which laws apply, what evidence supports its use, how clinicians are expected to supervise it, and who is responsible for monitoring problems after implementation. Those questions will remain important as lawmakers and regulators respond to new capabilities.

Determining Blame: AI Medical Malpractice

When AI contributes to a patient injury, the legal analysis generally begins with existing principles rather than a special rule assigning blame to ‘the algorithm.’ In an AI medical malpractice claim, a patient may need to establish that a clinician or other defendant owed a duty, breached the applicable standard of care, and caused compensable harm. The governing rules and evidentiary requirements vary by state.⁴ Consider three hypothetical situations:

A physician follows an AI recommendation despite clear contradictory clinical findings. 
The physician’s independent judgment and the professional standard of care may be central to the claim.

A hospital introduces a tool without appropriate testing, staff training, or oversight.
The decisions that led to its selection and implementation could raise separate questions about institutional responsibility.

A software product produces unsafe results because of an alleged design defect or inadequate warning.
The manufacturer may face a product liability claim, depending on the product, state law, and evidence.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. More than one party may be named in litigation, and a court must evaluate each party’s conduct and the causal connection to the injury. Contracts between hospitals and technology vendors may establish how the parties share financial responsibility, but they do not necessarily determine an injured patient's legal rights.

AI healthcare liability law is still developing. Rather than claiming a settled body of AI-specific malpractice precedents, it is more accurate to say that courts may apply established negligence and product liability doctrines to new factual disputes. Questions about how much clinicians should rely on AI recommendations, what warnings vendors must provide, and how to prove that an algorithm caused harm may produce further litigation.

Privacy Concerns and HIPAA Compliance

AI tools often rely on patient health information from medical records and other clinical sources, whether to train and test the technology or to generate recommendations during patient care. That creates legal questions about who may access protected health information (PHI), how it is secured, and whether a vendor may use it for purposes beyond the healthcare organization’s authorization.

The question, “Which AI is HIPAA-compliant?” has no reliable answer based on a product name alone. HIPAA compliance depends on the organization, the vendor’s role, the information involved, and the specific configuration and use. When an AI technology vendor creates, receives, maintains, or transmits PHI on behalf of a HIPAA-covered entity, the vendor may qualify as a business associate under HIPAA. A compliant business associate agreement and appropriate safeguards are then essential.⁵

Before adopting a tool, organizations should examine what data it collects, where information is stored, who can access it, whether the vendor uses it to improve its models, and how security incidents will be handled. The presence of encryption or a vendor’s marketing promise does not, by itself, resolve all HIPAA obligations.⁵

Improper disclosures or inadequate safeguards can expose organizations and business associates to investigations, corrective action, and financial penalties. Patients whose sensitive health information is exposed or used without authorization may face identity theft, discrimination, financial harm, and lasting violations of their privacy. Privacy review belongs at the beginning of AI procurement, not after a problem arises.

Develop the Legal Judgment Healthcare Innovation Demands

AI can improve healthcare, but responsible adoption requires people who can ask difficult questions before patients bear the consequences. As technology evolves, healthcare organizations need professionals who understand regulation, liability, ethics, and the realities of clinical decision-making.

Hofstra Law offers online health law education for professionals with different goals. Explore the MA in Health Law and Policy for a graduate-level legal foundation, the LLM in Health Law and Policy for lawyers seeking further specialization, or the Certificate in Health Law and Policy for a more focused course of study.

Review the programs and financial aid opportunities, then contact us directly or schedule a call with an admissions outreach advisor to discuss the education that fits your experience and ambitions.