Which of the following must a plaintiff prove in a medical malpractice claim?

In a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must establish that the physician's conduct fell below the standard of care expected in the medical community. This standard of care is typically defined as what a similarly qualified physician would have done under comparable circumstances. A failure to meet this standard can constitute negligence if it results in harm to the patient.

To succeed in a medical malpractice case, it is essential to establish that the physician acted in a way that a competent physician would not have, thereby supporting the claim that the physician's actions were deficient in the context of accepted medical practices. This involves demonstrating a breach of duty, which is a critical element of negligence.

The other options do not align with the requirements of proving a medical malpractice claim. Harmful intent, for example, is irrelevant to establishing negligence in this context, as the focus is on the actions taken rather than the physician's intentions. Furthermore, the idea that conduct must be personal does not hold significance in establishing liability. Lastly, a mistake made without injury does not constitute malpractice since the key factor is whether there was actual harm resulting from the deviation from accepted practices. Hence, proving that the physician's conduct fell below the appropriate standard of care is fundamental to a medical malpractice claim.