In the United States, the majority of physicians have been sued and those who have not, will be. Defendants share the notion that the lawsuit is totally fallacious. To be fallacious, the outcome of a medical intervention must be an unpreventable random maloccurrence. This is the only alternative to a medical error. The conflict over outcomes that are random and outcomes that are medical errors results in 46,000 malpractice suits every year in the USA. The burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, but this is insufficient to do more than just infer, not prove, a relationship between the medical intervention and the outcome. Plaintiffs, generally, prove a malpractice case using inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning leaves much to intuition. They use inductive reasoning because, by definition, preponderance of evidence, also, leaves much to intuition. Deductive reasoning is objective and there is no place for intuition. With deductive reasoning, the burden of proof is now sufficient to distinguish whether or not the cause relates to the effect with 95% confidence. A model for deductive reasoning in malpractice which is completely consistent with the scientific method is presented. This should and would derail frivolous lawsuits.
Keywords: Fallacious lawsuit; burden of proof; deductive reasoning; expert witness; inductive reasoning; law; medicine; modelling; null hypothesis; organised medicine; statistics; tort reform.