The present investigation aims to carry out a study of the legal-procedural practice defined as dynamic burden of proof within the framework of medical liability. More precisely, it addresses the study of actual procedural regulations, in the framework of evidence law, that deal with problematic features of the legal practice on this professional field. The primary objective of this work is to offer a proper interpretation of the procedural law that is in line with the core principles of the Colombian law order and, specially, that avoids due process violations. The reversal of the burden of proof –which has been widely discussed and applied by the legal practitioners– implies a modification of the factual basis of the substantive norm and, therefore, has important implications that can lead to the infringement of the basic tenets of the procedural law. It is for this reason that the definition of a set of criteria for the correct interpretation of current legislation appears to be an urgent task. Considering that the dynamic burden of proof is built on the concepts of proof availability and proof proximity –which are valid reasons for the reversal of the burden of proof–, the duty of cooperation which must inform the recollection of evidence should be clear and well-defined in order to be useful in ascertaining the procedural truth.

Mediante la presente investigación se realizó un estudio de la normatividad procesal vigente frente a los aspectos que pueden resultar problemáticos en la práctica jurídica respecto al tema del dinamismo probatorio en procesos de responsabilidad civil médica, con el objetivo de hacer una propuesta de interpretación de la norma procesal a fin de evitar vulneraciones al debido proceso. Una inversión de la carga de la prueba representa una modificación del supuesto de hecho de la norma sustancial, por lo cual se sugiere que la correcta interpretación de la norma consista en comprender que el dinamismo probatorio parte de los conceptos de disponibilidad y facilidad de la prueba, que representan razones válidas para imponer a la parte que no tiene la carga de probar, el deber de colaboración con el fin de que se cuente con medios probatorios relevantes que ayuden a esclarecer la verdad de los hechos.

Magíster en Derecho

Maestría