Legal Burdens of Proof: What Doctors Need to Know

Nov 3, 2024 | ANJC News & Updates

By Jeffrey Randolph, Esq., ANJC Legal Counsel

We all have heard the term “burden of proof” on legal television shows and movies, but what really does this mean in the context of a legal proceeding?

Law students spend multiple semesters in law school learning the nuances of burdens of proof. We don’t have time for that here, so this article will address what the various legal burdens of proof mean from a layperson perspective.

In almost every legal proceeding, the party who brings the action—the prosecutor in a criminal matter and the plaintiff in a civil matter—must meet the specific burden of proof for that particular type of case to prevail in the action. The rules of civil procedure, evidence, and prior case law provide a guide as to what level of evidence is necessary to accomplish this goal.

The burden of proof has two basic components. First, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of production, which requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of testimony, documents, or other admissible evidence. Second, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of persuasion, which is what most people consider the burden of proof. This standard determines the amount of evidence the plaintiff needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular determination.

In most civil cases, the burden of persuasion that applies is called a “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was “more likely than not to have occurred.” This is typically defined as a finding that at least 51% of the evidence favors the plaintiff’s claim. However, in some civil cases, the burden of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This burden of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is “substantially more likely than not to be true.” This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., 75% certainty), but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In criminal cases, the standard of proof is much higher because, unlike a civil case where the consequences are having to pay money, the consequences in a criminal case can be loss of liberty (i.e., extended jail time). The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is the highest standard of proof that may be imposed upon a party at trial and requires the prosecutor to show that the only logical explanation that can be derived from the facts is that the defendant committed the alleged crime, and that no other logical explanation can be inferred or deduced from the evidence. This is akin to a 99% level of certainty.

The differences in burden of proof can be illustrated by a famous legal proceeding in the media in the cases of State v. O.J. Simpson and a related civil proceeding where the family of the victims in the alleged homicide sued the defendant in civil court for monetary damages. In the criminal proceeding against O.J. Simpson, the prosecution failed to convince the jury that Mr. Simpson murdered his wife and her boyfriend beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in the civil proceeding, proceeding under the much lower preponderance of the evidence burden of proof, the civil jury found Mr. Simpson liable for the deaths and awarded millions of dollars of damages to the victims’ family. Thus, even with the same facts, documentary evidence, and witnesses, the prosecution failed to prove 99% certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the civil plaintiff was able to prove 51% certainty by a preponderance of the evidence.

In conclusion, this article addresses the very basic aspects of burdens of proof in legal cases. For more information, there are a variety of legal articles and publications available online for further study.


The author of Legal Ease/Legal Q&A (Jeffrey Randolph, Esq.) is an independent person of the ANJC and his views are not authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by the A.N.J.C. The information provided is for general guidance on matters of interest only and may not take into account particular facts relevant to your individual situation. The application and impact of laws and health care can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules, and regulations, there may be omissions or inaccuracies in information contained in these materials. Accordingly, the information you receive is provided with the understanding that the author and the A.N.J.C. are not herein engaged in rendering legal, accounting, tax, health care, or other professional advice and services nor are they providing specific advice with regard to your practice, the treatment of any specific illness, disease, deformity, or condition, or any other matter that affects trade, commerce, or legal rights of others. As such, this article should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional accounting, tax, legal, health care, or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should consult an appropriately trained professional.

0 Comments