AMA Advances Framework for Clinical AI Liability

October 30, 2026—The American Medical Association (AMA) announced that its Center for Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is advancing a new framework for aligning liability in clinical care with each party’s (developers and manufacturers; health care organizations and other deployers; physicians; and patients) authority and ability to prevent or mitigate harm. AMA noted that as AI takes on an expanding role in clinical care, questions about who is responsible when these technologies cause patient harm become increasingly urgent.

According to the AMA, existing liability frameworks were not designed for technologies in which physicians, developers, and health care organizations each exercise different levels of control over clinical AI systems. As a result, physicians may face liability for risks they cannot reasonably prevent, while patients may struggle to seek remedies when AI causes harm.

As outlined in the press release, the AMA is calling for an approach that establishes well-defined, complementary responsibilities across the clinical AI lifecycle as follows:

• Developers and manufacturers should demonstrate and maintain the safety and effectiveness of their products and address risks within their control.
• Health care organizations and other deployers should be accountable for how AI systems are selected, implemented, governed, and monitored in real-world settings.
• Physicians should be responsible for the clinical judgment they can meaningfully exercise, based on the system’s intended use, known limitations, and the information available at the point of care.
• Patients must retain meaningful avenues for seeking accountability and appropriate remedies when harm results from defective AI systems or other actionable failures.

The framework recognizes that multiple parties may bear liability for the use of AI when something goes wrong, with accountability aligned with each party’s ability to prevent harm. It also emphasizes that physician oversight cannot substitute for adequate evidence, appropriate system design, or the conditions necessary to make clinical review meaningful, stated the AMA.