Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 09.55.540 (2026)
Burden of proof
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 09.55.540. Burden of proof.
(a) In a malpractice action based on the negligence or wilful misconduct of a health care provider, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
(1) that the plaintiff had a health care provider-patient relationship with the defendant at the time of the act complained of;
(2) the degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised under the circumstances, at the time of the act complained of, by health care providers in the field or specialty in which the defendant is practicing;
(3) that the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to exercise this degree of care; and
(4) that, as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care, the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.
(b) In malpractice actions there is no presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant.
(c) In this section, “health care provider-patient relationship” means a relationship between a health care provider and a patient formed for the purpose of the health care provider providing examination, diagnosis, or treatment to the patient.
(a) In a malpractice action based on the negligence or wilful misconduct of a health care provider, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
(1) that the plaintiff had a health care provider-patient relationship with the defendant at the time of the act complained of;
(2) the degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised under the circumstances, at the time of the act complained of, by health care providers in the field or specialty in which the defendant is practicing;
(3) that the defendant either lacked this degree of knowledge or skill or failed to exercise this degree of care; and
(4) that, as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care, the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.
(b) In malpractice actions there is no presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant.
(c) In this section, “health care provider-patient relationship” means a relationship between a health care provider and a patient formed for the purpose of the health care provider providing examination, diagnosis, or treatment to the patient.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Mohr v. Grantham, 262 P.3d 490 (Wash. 2011).
Mohr v. Grantham, 262 P.3d 490 (Wash. 2011). “¶ 51 In considering the comparable Alaska statute, which like ours requires a plaintiff to prove the health care provider failed to exercise the proper standard of care and as a "proximate result of this" failure "the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise *502…”
Jackson v. Oklahoma Mem'l Hosp., 909 P.2d 765 (Okla. 1995). “Some states allow a presumption of negligence in more limited circumstances.”
Abille v. United States, 482 F. Supp. 703 (N.D. Cal. 1980). “1979) allocates the burden of proof in a malpractice action as follows: (a) In a malpractice action based on the negligence or willful misconduct of a health care provider, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence (1) the degree of knowledge or…”
Copeland v. Houser (D. Alaska 2023). “However, a federal district court may also decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original…”
Jackson v. United States (D. Alaska 2023). “Jackson on December 3, 2018, fell below the relevant standard of care and caused her death.”
Fredilito Tumbaga v. United States, 584 F. App'x 707 (9th Cir. 2014). “See Alaska Stat. § 09.55.540 (outlining the plaintiffs burden of proof in malpractice cases); Ennen v.”
Bloodworth v. United States, 196 F. App'x 513 (9th Cir. 2006). “The district court also did not err in finding that Appellants failed to meet their burden of proof pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 09.55.540 . The district court reasonably determined that Drs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.