Personal malpractice insurance....yes or no? - page 4

We had this discussion at work the other day. One of the points against it was that lawyers will go for the person(s) with the most malpractice insurance. Also I know, I've been told that the... Read More

  1. by   mscsrjhm
    I carry my own, because I do alot of things outside the hospital as well, through Scouts, or at roadside accidents, etc.

    I have no knowledge about what is covered. But, I have heard that many things are not covered. If they have included these acts to be covered, there must no be very many suits involving these issues.
    (My concern is insurance taking money because of the myth that facilities do not cover their employees.)

    Second: the nurses that I know who've been named in suits weren't named because they had insurance, but because theirs was the only nursing signature the lawyer could read (fact!). Everyone whose name appears anywhere in the chart gets named around here.

    Do you really think that a lawyer would only list the nurses whose signature they could read? This is nonsense. Sorry, but this shows absolutely no knowledge of legalities. A very simple call/letter to the opposing attorney' office takes care of the signature issue. (Facilities have gone through time cards and old staffing sheets to provide that info. If unreadable signatures would prevent being named on a lawsuit...everyone would do it.)

    Medical records are obtained and reviewed (expensive) by Physician/Nurse consultants.
    Names of those involved are included. Then, personal malpractice insurance info is obtained.
    Again, with all due respect, you are incorrect in many of your statements.

    Third: my hospital would rather settle out of court than defend thier nurses. fact. Several colleagues were absolutely correct in their care according to the hospital lawyers, but weren't defended in court because it was easier & cheaper to settle. I want my own lawyer

    This also shows a lack of legal knowledge. Most suits (95%) are settled. Your lawyer will work WITH the facilities' insurance lawyers. They WILL NOT "defend" you in court just because you want them to. Cases just don't go to court because you want everyone to see that you did the right thing. Doesn't happen.
    Last edit by mscsrjhm on Jul 19, '04
  2. by   mother/babyRN
    Yes, definitely, ESPECIALLY in OB...The hospital attorney and hospital period are not going to be as behind you as you think....If it is between you or a doc they will sacrifice you....Have seen that happen too often..
  3. by   mscsrjhm
    Quote from mother/babyRN
    Yes, definitely, ESPECIALLY in OB...The hospital attorney and hospital period are not going to be as behind you as you think....If it is between you or a doc they will sacrifice you....Have seen that happen too often..


    I have never worked OB, don't know much about birthin' babies.
    But, keep in mind, it is not the 'hospital attorney', it is the insurance attorney. Their agenda is alot different than the hospitals'.
  4. by   mother/babyRN
    True, although you do actuallly have to talk with both sets and if you are the one being sued, they do not generally strive very hard to protect you personally...
  5. by   mscsrjhm
    Quote from mother/babyRN
    True, although you do actuallly have to talk with both sets and if you are the one being sued, they do not generally strive very hard to protect you personally...


    Meaning, if your name is included in the suit? (you wouldn't be sued alone for something done at work.. the facility would be named first.)
    Even a personal malpractice attorney isn't interested in protecting YOU, they are interested in protecting the insurance $$$. It isn't that you have your own personal lawyer, just for you. This is one of the myths.
    Their interest is in reducing damages. (And getting paid that hourly rate-but they can only draw that out for so long)
  6. by   mattsmom81
    If I worked mother baby I would definitely carry malpractice no doubt.

    Lawyers in my state are suing nurses more and more...and it does have something to do with the fact the $$$ is available for them to get at. I've never carried it nor have I been named in a lawsuit. (my facility has) I suspect if I had carried insurance I would have been included in several suits.

    It's our own personal decision to carry insurance or not.
  7. by   mscsrjhm
    Quote from mattsmom81
    If I worked mother baby I would definitely carry malpractice no doubt.
    Quote from mattsmom81

    Lawyers in my state are suing nurses more and more...and it does have something to do with the fact the $$$ is available for them to get at. I've never carried it nor have I been named in a lawsuit. (my facility has) I suspect if I had carried insurance I would have been included in several suits.

    It's our own personal decision to carry insurance or not.


    More and more states are capping damages, which means attorneys will start going after nurses more frequently.
  8. by   katzrkool
    I just graduated and will be starting work in a couple weeks. Can anyone who has malpractice insurance recommend a good company to go through "just in case."
  9. by   jeepgirl
    while i was a student, we had to have malpractice insurance or we weren't permitted at the clinical sites... period.



    Quote from CNM2B
    There was a thread on this when I first came here and just about everyone said to get it, so I am...even as a student, I am going to carry my own malpractice insurance. I don't trust ANYONE to back me up and am not willing to lose everything over some imagined slight I may or may not have performed!
  10. by   JBudd
    Do you really think that a lawyer would only list the nurses whose signature they could read? This is nonsense. Sorry, but this shows absolutely no knowledge of legalities. A very simple call/letter to the opposing attorney' office takes care of the signature issue. (Facilities have gone through time cards and old staffing sheets to provide that info. If unreadable signatures would prevent being named on a lawsuit...everyone would do it.)

    I never claimed knowledge of legalities, I am reporting acutal experience. They did not do all this other stuff you list, they only named the one sig they could read. And yes, a lawyer did only list the nurse he could easily identify and admitted it. And there are nurses here who do sign illegibly for that reason. So with a return of your respectful attitude, its not nonsense. It should be, but it isn't.

    Third: my hospital would rather settle out of court than defend thier nurses. fact. Several colleagues were absolutely correct in their care according to the hospital lawyers, but weren't defended in court because it was easier & cheaper to settle. I want my own lawyer

    This also shows a lack of legal knowledge. Most suits (95%) are settled. Your lawyer will work WITH the facilities' insurance lawyers. They WILL NOT "defend" you in court just because you want them to. Cases just don't go to court because you want everyone to see that you did the right thing. Doesn't happen.
    [/i][/QUOTE]

    I didn't expect them to defend me just because I want them to, but I do want someone around looking out for me, even if it means settling, to be MY lawyer, not the hospitals'. My policy says up front they may settle, and I still bought the policy.
  11. by   mscsrjhm
    Quote from jbudd
    do you really think that a lawyer would only list the nurses whose signature they could read? this is nonsense. sorry, but this shows absolutely no knowledge of legalities. a very simple call/letter to the opposing attorney' office takes care of the signature issue. (facilities have gone through time cards and old staffing sheets to provide that info. if unreadable signatures would prevent being named on a lawsuit...everyone would do it.)
    Quote from jbudd

    i never claimed knowledge of legalities, i am reporting acutal experience. they did not do all this other stuff you list, they only named the one sig they could read. and yes, a lawyer did only list the nurse he could easily identify and admitted it. and there are nurses here who do sign illegibly for that reason. so with a return of your respectful attitude, its not nonsense. it should be, but it isn't.

    you cannot be serious. this would take care of all legalities for the entire world, "just make sure they cannot read your signature". budd, this is a myth that i have heard before. it is untrue. i have sent letter to the opposing council requesting clarification of staff present at the time of incidents, and they must respond. no judge would ever allow something like that, - unless the plaintiff had a really, really bad lawyer.-- which sometimes happens.

    third: my hospital would rather settle out of court than defend thier nurses. fact. several colleagues were absolutely correct in their care according to the hospital lawyers, but weren't defended in court because it was easier & cheaper to settle. i want my own lawyer

    this also shows a lack of legal knowledge. most suits (95%) are settled. your lawyer will work with the facilities' insurance lawyers. they will not "defend" you in court just because you want them to. cases just don't go to court because you want everyone to see that you did the right thing. doesn't happen.
    [/i]

    i didn't expect them to defend me just because i want them to, but i do want someone around looking out for me, even if it means settling, to be my lawyer, not the hospitals'. my policy says up front they may settle, and i still bought the policy.[/quote]

    remember, your lawyer is working for the insurance company. you happen to be the pawn in a very, very different game.
  12. by   sammilynn
    Can someone plz tell me what malpractice insurance is?
  13. by   hipab4hands
    [QUOTE=James Huffman]Sigh.



    If nurses "feel better" having malpractice insurance, buy it. But realize it's simply a form of therapy.


    I'm with you. I talked to a malpractice attorney years ago,and was told that having malpractice insurance is like having a big neon sign lit up with the words "Sue Me".

    This attorney told me pretty much the same thing that you said. By the time assets, property was seized etc., and everyone was paid off, there would be nothing left over the defendent. Worse case scenerio- you lose your job and your license. Even if future wages were garnished, lets say you end up working at the local Walmart. Do you really think that the defendent is going to wait years and years to get paid? I think not.

close