TEXAS MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE EXAM AND ANSWERS

TEXAS MEDICAL
JURISPRUDENCE EXAM
AND ANSWERS

MEDICAL LAW & ETHICS


1. Can a patient sue a doctor successfully if no physician–patient relationship
exists?

A. Yes, always
✅ B. No
C. Only if the patient is harmed
D. Only if another doctor testifies against them

Rationale:
A patient cannot bring a successful malpractice lawsuit without a formal physician–patient
relationship. This relationship establishes the doctor’s duty of care toward the patient. Without it,
there is no legal obligation and therefore no basis for negligence.
Options A, C, and D are incorrect because harm or testimony alone does not create a legal duty
— the relationship itself is the cornerstone of any malpractice claim.



2. If no prior physician–patient relationship exists, are doctors legally required to
respond to treatment calls?

A. Yes, always
✅ B. No
C. Only if the patient is in a hospital
D. Only if they are the nearest available doctor

Rationale:
A doctor who has not yet entered into a professional relationship with a patient has no legal duty
to respond to treatment requests. This protects physicians from liability when they have not



1

,agreed to treat or consulted with the patient.
Options A, C, and D confuse ethical obligations with legal ones — while responding may be
morally commendable, it is not a legal requirement without a prior relationship.



3. Does being “on call” automatically create a physician–patient relationship?

A. Yes, as soon as you’re on call
B. Only when you’re notified of a patient
✅ C. No
D. Only if the patient is admitted to your care

Rationale:
Being “on call” does not, by itself, establish a legal physician–patient relationship. The
relationship arises only when the physician actually provides consultation, advice, or direct care.
Options A, B, and D are incorrect because they suggest the relationship forms automatically, but
courts consistently require evidence of actual medical involvement.



4. How can a physician properly end a physician–patient relationship without
committing abandonment?

A. By verbally informing the patient to find another doctor
✅ B. By giving 30 days’ written notice and ensuring emergency coverage
C. By refusing further appointments
D. By transferring the file immediately

Rationale:
To terminate care ethically and legally, a doctor must give written notice—typically 30 days in
advance—and ensure the patient can obtain emergency services during the transition. This
prevents claims of abandonment.
Options A, C, and D are incorrect because abrupt or verbal termination without proper notice
violates the continuing duty to provide care during the transition period.



5. Does a physician’s duty extend to unborn children or potential victims of an ill
patient?

A. No, duty ends with the patient
B. Only if the patient requests it
✅ C. Yes
D. Only if the law mandates



2

,Rationale:
Courts recognize that a physician’s duty can extend beyond the immediate patient when
foreseeable harm to others exists, such as to an unborn child or third parties endangered by an
infectious or violent patient.
Options A, B, and D overlook this broader legal responsibility, which arises from public health
and safety principles, not only explicit consent.



6. What does “proximate cause” mean in a medical negligence case?

A. The act of filing a lawsuit
✅ B. Proof that negligence directly caused harm and was not too remote
C. The presence of malpractice insurance
D. The testimony of an expert witness

because they Rationale:
“Proximate cause” links the physician’s negligent act to the patient’s injury. The plaintiff must
prove that the harm would not have occurred but for the physician’s conduct and that it was a
reasonably foreseeable result.
Options A, C, and D are incorrect describe unrelated legal processes or evidence, not causation
itself.



7. What are the two components of proximate cause?

A. Duty and breach
B. Negligence and harm
✅ C. Cause-in-fact and foreseeability
D. Intent and action

Rationale:
The two components of proximate cause are cause-in-fact (the “but-for” test) and foreseeability
(the harm was predictable and not too remote). Both must be proven to establish legal causation.
Other options confuse separate legal concepts — duty and breach establish negligence but do not
demonstrate causation.



8. Must an expert witness in a medical malpractice case be actively practicing
medicine?

A. No, retired physicians qualify
✅ B. Yes



3

, C. Only if the court requests
D. Only in surgical cases

Rationale:
An expert witness must generally be an actively practicing professional familiar with current
medical standards to testify credibly about standard of care.
Options A, C, and D are incorrect because current practice ensures relevance and competency
across all medical areas, not just surgery.



9. Must an expert witness understand the standards of care in the relevant field?

A. No, only general medical knowledge
B. Only if required by statute
✅ C. Yes
D. Only for serious malpractice cases

Rationale:
A valid expert witness must know the applicable standards of care for the defendant’s specialty
to offer credible testimony. This ensures that opinions are grounded in accepted medical practice.
Options A, B, and D fail to meet evidentiary standards, as general or partial knowledge is
insufficient for expert testimony.



10. Does an expert witness need specialized training to express opinions on the
standard of care?

A. No, just experience
B. Only in academic medicine
✅ C. Yes
D. Only if board certified

Rationale:
Expert witnesses must possess adequate education, training, and experience to opine whether the
care met accepted standards. This validates their expertise and objectivity in court.
Options A, B, and D misrepresent the requirement — formal board certification helps but is not
mandatory; sufficient equivalent training is key.

11. Must an expert witness be board-certified to testify in a malpractice case?

A. Yes, always
✅ B. No, but must have equivalent qualifications or experience




4