When something goes wrong with medical treatment or you suffer an injury, it is understandable to want answers. AI has become an increasingly common tool for finding information and making sense of unfamiliar situations, including questions about medical treatment and legal rights. You may turn to it to understand what happened, whether someone was at fault or whether you have grounds to bring a claim.
However, deciding whether a personal injury or clinical negligence claim is viable is rarely straightforward. The answer depends on the individual circumstances, the available evidence and, often, questions that cannot be resolved without independent expert opinion. Relying on AI to decide whether you have a claim risks giving you an incorrect or misleading picture of your position.
An apparent mistake does not automatically mean negligence
Something going wrong does not necessarily mean that someone was legally at fault. In clinical negligence, it must be established that the treatment fell below the required standard of care. In personal injury claims, there must similarly be a legal basis for holding someone responsible for the injury.
A claimant must establish both breach of duty and causation. In other words, it is necessary to establish not only that the care provided fell below the required standard, but also that this failure caused the injury or loss being claimed.
This distinction is important when assessing the reliability of an answer generated by AI. A description of events may suggest that a professional made a mistake, but that does not mean their actions amounted to a breach of duty.
AI will look at a clinical case with the benefit of knowing how events unfolded and the outcome for the patient. This can lead to situations where the outcome looks worse or appears like it was easily preventable; a significant issue as negligence must be assessed against what was reasonably expected of the healthcare professional at the time, rather than what seems obvious with hindsight. Answering that question will require the evidence of an appropriate independent expert. The significance of an apparent error may only become clear when the wider circumstances are considered.
The significance of symptoms and medical history
Clinical negligence cases can be particularly difficult to assess because symptoms rarely exist in isolation. They may develop gradually, overlap with those of other conditions or become more significant as a patient’s condition changes. A symptom that appears unremarkable in one context may warrant further investigation when considered alongside a patient’s medical history, other symptoms or subsequent deterioration.
Someone looking back at their treatment may understandably question why their symptoms did not prompt further investigation. However, assessing whether the care was negligent requires consideration of what was known at the time, what was recorded, what investigations were undertaken and what a reasonably competent clinician should have done in those circumstances.
A later diagnosis does not, by itself, establish that an earlier failure occurred. Equally, a failure to recognise the significance of symptoms may have serious consequences, but the effect of that failure on the patient’s eventual outcome must still be established.
For the same reason that a patient should not rely on an internet search to diagnose a condition, it is important not to treat an AI-generated explanation of medical treatment as a reliable assessment of whether negligence occurred. Understanding the medical circumstances is an essential part of assessing a claim, and that requires the right evidence and expertise.
Consider a patient whose diagnosis was delayed. It may appear that the failure to diagnose a condition sooner was negligent. However, a separate question arises: would an earlier diagnosis have changed the outcome? Would the patient have received different treatment, avoided further deterioration or had a better prognosis?
Is compensation actually what you want?
The limitations of AI are not confined to questions of law and medical evidence. There is also the question of what you are actually hoping to achieve.
When someone asks AI whether they have a claim, the conversation tends to focus on the question being asked. But a person who believes they have received poor treatment may not necessarily be looking for compensation. They may want to understand what happened, receive an explanation or apology, or know whether lessons have been learned to prevent the same thing happening to someone else.
For others, compensation may be the main concern. These are different objectives, and the most appropriate way forward will depend on the individual’s circumstances and priorities.
An AI response suggesting that you may have a claim could therefore point you towards a process that does not best meet your needs. Equally, concentrating on whether compensation is available may mean that other options are overlooked.
This is where an experienced solicitor can offer something different from a question-and-answer tool. A solicitor can discuss what happened, explore what matters most to you and consider the available options in the round. Sometimes that will involve investigating a potential claim. In other cases, it may mean explaining alternative routes that are better suited to what you want to achieve.
The reality of bringing a claim
Even where there may appear to be clear grounds for a claim, understanding the complexities that may arise as it progresses requires experience and a thorough assessment of the evidence. A solicitor will consider not only the apparent strengths of a case, but also its potential weaknesses, how the evidence might be interpreted by the defendant and the court, whether there are alternative explanations for what happened, and what further questions need to be asked. This requires looking beyond the initial account of events and considering the wider context, including the perspectives of those involved.
While AI can provide an immediate response, assessing a personal injury or clinical negligence claim requires more than an initial account of events. A detailed review can help identify issues that may not be immediately apparent and provide a more informed understanding of the potential claim.
Understanding the potential difficulties from the outset is an important part of deciding whether to proceed. This includes considering not only whether the legal tests may be met, but also the evidence required, the likely timescales and the practical implications of pursuing a claim.
Why speaking to a specialist solicitor matters
Assessing a potential claim requires experience, a thorough review of the circumstances and an understanding of the wider picture. An experienced solicitor will consider not only the apparent failings, but the available evidence, the potential impact on the individual and what they hope to achieve, helping them understand their position and the options available.
Speaking to a specialist solicitor does not commit you to bringing a claim. It gives you the opportunity to understand your position, make an informed decision and consider the route that best meets your needs.