Personal malpractice insurance....yes or no?

ayndim,

I applaud you for being one of the very few participants in this discussion willing to acknowlege and meet your responsibilities to a patient who you may inadvertently injure. Your morals and ethics are above and beyond those of our fellow RNs who are intent on finding ways to avoid such responsibility.

I am quite sure that those very same people would never allow an uninsured physician to care for themselves or their families. How can we possibly expect to be considered as professionals when we are not willing to take responsibility for our actions (however inadvertent) and provide compensation for patients who have been truly harmed by our actions?

Jim, I am with you here. Before I got into nursing was in legal field, also wife is L & D nurse. First thing the legal team does is an "Asset Search" (I've done them on other people) If you do not have insurance, 2nd home, yatch, airplane, business you are not of much interest. Depending on the state, Texas for example...Cannot garnish wages, retirement, cannot seize homestead, cars ONLY luxuary items (boats, harleys). My wife was named twice in twenty years in L & D and both times she showed up to be deposed, she was dropped from suit after assets were revealed, also, yes most assest are in my name or joint name. I would like the insurance for BON stuff for sure though. Just a tough call and a personal preference. Coencidently the lawyers usually hired to defend nurses or hospitals are usually RN/JD or MD/JD.
"Rock on fellow nurses"

Originally Posted by Jolie

ayndim,

Don't shoot the messenger. My concern IS my fellow nurses.

Originally Posted by Jolie

ayndim,

Obviously, "Jim" has legal expertise. CSLee has acknowledged legal background, and I have worked for legal firms. Our posts are not about responsibility, they are about the real world, and the workings of the legal field.

Fine. Then I ask my original questions again.

If you make a mistake, will you immediately compensate for the damage done?

Or would you wait for a jury trial?

And if you would wait, why would you wait? Why should an attorney get 35-40% of a settlement from your insurance carrier?

Jim Huffman

If I had the money I would compensate but since I don't I will carry insurance. Hopefully, they would not drag out a case that was obviously my fault. It would be nice if a pt could go right to the insurance carrier and bypass the attorney. Who in my mind make way too much money off of personal injuries cases of any sort.

This is my solution to the malpractice rates problem. Every dr, nurse and medical worker in the country puts in X amount into a fund. When someone suffers an injury a panel of 5 drs, 5 nurses and 5 healthcare workers examine the case. They decide if the provider followed the "reasonable and prudent dr/nurse or hc worker" would have done. These people have only one job and that is to sit on this panel and must have X years of experience. If it is decided that the dr/nurse/worker is responsible then a judge would decide the amount. If a dr/nurse/worker has had a judgement against them then their rate is raised, their rate would be 2X, 3X. Obviously, each worker would have different rates according to their risk initially. Nurses generally have lower risk as drs have a greater liability as they are responsible for giving orders and such. After so many judgements and since it is a central database, workers could have privelages taken away (their license) if there is a pattern of problems. Hospitals would also have to contribute. The nurses/workers contribution could be part of the benefits package and would not affect the nurses/workers coverage.

Jim, I already answered this question on the other thread. While I find this to be an interesting topic of debate, I don't have the time or inclination to repeat my posts. Please check there, and add your comments.

Originally Posted by Jolie

Jim, I already answered this question on the other thread. While I find this to be an interesting topic of debate, I don't have the time or inclination to repeat my posts. Please check there, and add your comments.

With all due respect, you didn't quite answer the question as to why you would wait for a jury trial (which wouldn't happen), instead of paying. If you made a mistake that greatly affected someone's life, would you just sign over your checks/house/auto?

I wouldn't be able to sign over all my checks/house/auto as I have a family to support to. That is why I have insurance. If I thought I was at fault and the insurance denied the claim, which I am not sure they can do if I said "Yes I am responsible" then I would try to do what I could. If I knew I did something life altering I would let my insurance company know and have them contact the person/family first. Maybe it could be done without a lawyer then. If I could help monetarily I would. But no I would not take from my own family to give to someone else. I am not that unselfish. My own children will always come first. However, I would not be buying them designer duds in that case. If I could help in other ways (i.e., babysitting a child w/cp so parents could have a break or helping the family find resources, such as social security benefits for the disabled.)

My biggest pet peeve is lack of responsibility. I hate when people try to get out of stuff. Like if someone rear ends another person when driving. They still try to make excuses. Just step up to the plate and admit what you did. And deal with it. NO EXCUSES! And the people who are out to make a quick buck. The point of compensation is not to make you in a better position than before. It is to make sure you aren't in a worse position. Some pain and suffering compensation is normal but some of the verdicts are ridiculous. So if you are a drug addict who lives on the street with no job you cannot expect your family to be compensated as much as the family that lost a bread winner who earned $50,000 year.

My personal experience is that I lost my mom in May 2000, three days before Mother's Day. It was thought to have been a heart attack but it was a blood clot. My mom had suffered from these before and was on Coumadin. She was taken off for a test but then they scheduled it so far out and she wasn't told to start taking it again (she was in her 70's). Well if the dr would have followed up or if the nurse would have told her to take it until X days before the test she would probably be alive. The dr told her not to take it until the test and didn't realize that it would be so far. The nurse didn't realize the dr told her not to take it. We didn't sue the dr but you can bet I reported it. No money could replace my mom. There is no way to put our family back to its original position. Why is it people think money is due them in that case. What is due is an apology from the dr and to admit he caused my mom's death. No I didn't report the nurse as she had no way of knowing my mom was even on it.

If I become a nurse (and as I mentioned in another forum, my dreams of becoming a nurse might be slowly fading off into the sunset ) and I remain single... I don't know, after reading what SmilingBluEyes wrote a few posts back, it's probably worth the peace of mind. But, suits follow the money trail, and as a nurse, I probably won't have the assets to worry about it.

Now, if I'm married to the guy I'm currently dating, he'll MAKE me buy insurance. He's a natural born worrier and I can definitely see him insisting that I buy a policy. Not that I blame him if we are married.