•  
  •  
 

Florida Atlantic University Undergraduate Law Journal

Advisor

Anita Blowers

College

Science

Keywords

Medical malpractice, Involuntary manslaughter, negligence, Medical ethics, Tort law, liability, Healthcare law, Standard of care, Reckless disregard, Patient safety, liability, Legal precedent, Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson, Propofol, California Penal Code, Criminal malpractice, Medical jurisprudence, Professional misconduct, Duty of care, homicide, Healthcare regulation, prosecution, criminal, Medical accountability, Evidence concealment, Forensic medicine, Patient harm

Document Type

Article

Abstract

This article examines the legal distinctions between civil medical malpractice and criminal negligence clarified by People v. Conrad Murray, the high-profile prosecution of Michael Jackson’s personal physician Conrad Murray for involuntary manslaughter. Traditionally, medical malpractice is addressed through civil tort law, which focuses on compensating patients for injuries that were a result of departures from established standards of care. Contrarily, civil negligence is typically reserved only for extreme circumstances of reckless and intentional wrongdoing. Murray’s administration of propofol, an intravenous anesthetic meant for surgical procedures, in a private residence rather than a controlled medical setting, his departure from the room the propofol was administered containing an unattended Jackson, and the delay and concealment of evidence prior to notifying emergency services demonstrated a sustained pattern of gross negligence that transcended the threshold of ordinary civil malpractice. The People v. Murray case established that physicians satisfy criminal negligence when their actions constitute a deliberate and reckless disregard for patient life, ultimately serving to clarify the boundary between civil malpractice and involuntary manslaughter as outlined by the California Penal Code § 192(b).

Download

Share

COinS