Glad I got malpractice insurance

Nurses General Nursing

Published

I was having dinner with my wife at IHOP last night, and in the booth behind us a couple was having an interesting conversation. I didn't hear the whole story since I was having my own conversation with my wife, but the guy behind us had some weird things to say to the person he was with. Seems he was talking about something he saw while he was in the ER. A lady there was crying and he was talking to her, she said her husband had just died, they did some kind of procedure on him after an emergency and he didn't survive. He asked her what they did, and after she told him he went on to tell her how they did all the wrong things. They should have done this and that and your husband would have lived. She asked him how he knows all this stuff he went on to tell her that he didn't know anything about medicine but "I know how the human body works." He advised her to sue everybody involved and she now is. I couldn't tell you what exactly he was talking about, it was about 1 am in the morning and I don't remember exactly what he said, but I do remember that I was thinking "What a trip, he has no clue what he is talking about." Even if you are a biology major and know all about how the human body works by itself does not mean you know anything about pharmacology and how these medicines act on the body and why they work like they do.

Just listening to these self-declared experts of the human body and all their medical training they recieved from "ER" and watching TLC and Discovery Channel reminded me that my is almost up, time to send them my annual $100 and sleep good at night.

Sorry, me again. Can't an attorney/famiy put a lein against your earnings if you are found guilty? Or is that just debt? Geez, I think I need an extra class in this.

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.
Except, since a couple of us had malpractice insurance, the fiscal unit did go after them for reimbursement. So, I've got a settlement on my record. In this case, I would have been better off without the malpractice insurance.

And how did the fiscal unit know that you had ?

Actually my insurance has kept me out of Court and I have never settled a case.

And how did the fiscal unit know that you had malpractice insurance?

Actually my insurance has kept me out of Court and I have never settled a case.

Part of discovery or even before. Once the intent notice was sent... respondant's attorneys usually find out. But, sometimes it waits for discovery. Finding out who has or hasn't got insurance is no big deal.

How has your insurance kept you from being named in civil case? (If you don't mind telling... not asking for specifics-just general reason insurance "kept you out of Court". Thanks.)

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

If I screw up, I WANT my patient to be appropriately compensated. I believe it is part of my professional responsibility to have the ability to compensate any patient I may accidentally harm. That's another reason I carry .

As far as suits against nurses being uncommon -- well ... there are a lot of things that are uncommon that I still want to have insurance for. It's unlikely that my house will burn down, but I have insurance for that ... and for killing someone in an automobile, etc. etc. etc. I think insurance is to protect my assets in the event that something bad (but usually very unlikely) happens.

llg

Specializes in Public Health, DEI.

Part of discovery or even before. Once the intent notice was sent... respondant's attorneys usually find out. But, sometimes it waits for discovery. Finding out who has or hasn't got insurance is no big deal.

How has your insurance kept you from being named in civil case? (If you don't mind telling... not asking for specifics-just general reason insurance "kept you out of Court". Thanks.)

Sorry, I responded to the wrong message.

Specializes in Public Health, DEI.
And how did the fiscal unit know that you had malpractice insurance?

Actually my insurance has kept me out of Court and I have never settled a case.

Shockingly enough, they do ask you this question. I'm sure its easy enough to find out, even if they hadn't asked.

The case didn't go to court, it was settled by (the legal representatives of) all parties involved in some convoluted legal procedure that I couldn't possibly begin to comprehend or explain.

Specializes in Medical.
If I screw up, I WANT my patient to be appropriately compensated. I believe it is part of my professional responsibility to have the ability to compensate any patient I may accidentally harm. That's another reason I carry liability insurance.

Excellent point, llg. Like all of us I've made mistakes and had some scarily near misses. I'll never forget how close I came to giving morphine to an allergic patient when I was working in oncology - where the dose didn't tip me off. I'd uncapped the needle when the RN I was checking with asked the patient what she was allergic to. When she said "morphine" we froze, and the RN (really quietly) said "What happens when you have morphine?"

The patient said "I stopped breathing last time, dar. I'm not sure what happened after that."

We excused ourselves, rechecked the chart, and discovered that the order (which we'd checked three times, per protocol) was for pethidine.

If I'd given her morph I'd absolutely want her or her family to have some material compensation.

Needless to say, I'm extra cautious now!

I'm fortunate that my union membership includes indemnity insurance (and that litigation in general is rare in Australia). When I hear about serious errors, I most often think "that's a mistake I wouldn't make," but there is that significant percentage where a patient has suffered because of something that I think could happen to anyone. I'm not saying that in all these cases a nurse was at fault, but you don't actually have to have done something wrong to be named. Besides, I would have thought I'd never misread a drug chart and almost give a patient a flagged allergen!

Recently I was in charge when a grad nurse changed at IV pump (because the battery on the old one was flat and the patient wasn't near an electrical outlet - long story). She forgot to change the infusion rate (!) and the patient got five times the dose of an antiarrhythmic for about three-quarters of an hour. Patient ended up being monitored and okay, but it could have been way worse. My point is that, although I wasn't in any way directly involved, I was in charge. The coroner would certainly have called me to testify, and the patient/his family could absolutely have included me in a suit.

When folks on here point out that malpractice insurance makes a nurse more (not less) liable for lawsuits, this is the kind of "evidence" we are greeted with.

As I always say: If owning malpractice insurance makes someone sleep better at night, go for it. But know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's money down the toilet, and makes the nurse in question a greatly enhanced target for unscrupulous attorneys.

Jim Huffman, RN

Something to think about. My hubby has sat on a jury during a malpractice case. He said everyone was going after the Dr. and four nurses. Not one of the nurses had . The jury listened to the evidence and eventually found in favor of the nurses. The jury unanimously determined that it was the facility that should be held liable, not the Dr. or the nurses. After the trial, they found out that the plaintiff and the facility settled out of court for several hundred thousand $$$. He said the case wasn't even close and that the whole jury agreed that it should have never gone to trial. The plaintiff was just trying to get every dime from everybody.

Fortunately the jury saw through what was happening. But several thousand of $$ was spent on legal fee to clear their names. What if the jury had gone the other way? The plaintiff played the sympathy card to the hilt. He lost his leg; he is wheel chair bound for life; he'll never be able to work again. You know the speal.

NOT having insurance did NOT protect these nurses from being involved in a lawsuit. Where would the nurses have been had the jury bought into the sympathy plea?

Nurses seldom get sued, but for that one in a million chance, I still want protection in this sue happy culture we live in.

Something to think about. My hubby has sat on a jury during a malpractice case. He said everyone was going after the Dr. and four nurses. Not one of the nurses had malpractice insurance. The jury listened to the evidence and eventually found in favor of the nurses. The jury unanimously determined that it was the facility that should be held liable, not the Dr. or the nurses. After the trial, they found out that the plaintiff and the facility settled out of court for several hundred thousand $$$. He said the case wasn't even close and that the whole jury agreed that it should have never gone to trial. The plaintiff was just trying to get every dime from everybody.

Fortunately the jury saw through what was happening. But several thousand of $$ was spent on legal fee to clear their names. What if the jury had gone the other way? The plaintiff played the sympathy card to the hilt. He lost his leg; he is wheel chair bound for life; he'll never be able to work again. You know the speal.

NOT having insurance did NOT protect these nurses from being involved in a lawsuit. Where would the nurses have been had the jury bought into the sympathy plea?

Nurses seldom get sued, but for that one in a million chance, I still want protection in this sue happy culture we live in.

How odd.... juries are not allowed to know whether there is insurance or not. This would unduly influence the jury.

Also, how would the jury find out "after the trial" that the issue was a settlement?? If settled, it would immediately end the trial..as there would be no need for a trial...

How could the facility be held liable, and not the staff?? The staff ARE the facility.?? When a facility is sued for malpractice... it isn't the "facility" that committed the alleged action... it is the staff...

Perhaps I am not understanding???

How odd.... juries are not allowed to know whether there is insurance or not. This would unduly influence the jury.

Also, how would the jury find out "after the trial" that the issue was a settlement?? If settled, it would immediately end the trial..as there would be no need for a trial...

How could the facility be held liable, and not the staff?? The staff ARE the facility.?? When a facility is sued for malpractice... it isn't the "facility" that committed the alleged action... it is the staff...

Perhaps I am not understanding???

This case was more than a decade ago. Things have changed since then. Many procedures have changed. My point was not to reexamine or try to explain the entire case. Just to show that, while they may not be common, I know someone who sat on a jury where nurses were named as a party and that it seemed irrelevant to the plaintiff's attorney as to whether they had insurance or not. If you want a detail by detail point, you would have to look the case up and read the transcripts.

He says that it wasn't until after the trial that they found out about the prior settlement. A couple jurys over heard the Plaintiff's attorney tell his client - "good thing we settled with the hospital" if he remembers correctly. He and a couple other jurys talked to a couple of the nurses after the trial. They were so elated because they were really worried about loosing their houses and everything they own because they had no ; not to mention the possibility of not being able to practice nursing. One - a veteran nurse - said that the thought of having malpractice insurance "never crossed my mind prior to this suit." My husband flat told them that they should have sued the hospital and the unit supervisor. He says the nurses responded that "they did - but they settled out a court before trial started."

With the facility settling prior to trial, that settled that part of the lawsuit; thus, those parties did not have to appear at trail. The plaintiff still went after the others. He doesn't remember exactly how, but the way things were being run, he remember that the unit supervisor had interfered or barred the nurses from verbally calling the Dr. They had charted, but for some reason the information that things were going down hill never got to the Dr. He says that they (the jury) felt that the nurses did their job and were just following orders. They felt that the orders were wrong, but the jury felt that it was wrong to blame someone for following orders.

It was a fairly complicated case with the Dr and nurses on one side. I only tried to summarize his experience as briefly as possible to illustrate the point that having no insurance is not necessarily protection from suit - especially these days.

It was after trial that they found out about the nurses having no insurance - and they volunteered that info during a conversation. It never came up at trial. After trial they found out about the settlement with the hospital. It was never mentioned at trial. He says the jury kept wondering why the hospital was not sued also. Then they found out - after trail.

This was also long before we got together. At the time, he know nothing of how nurses were treated, what they were paid. He - like the general public never really gave it any thought. Now that we are together and he sees what it is really like to be a nurse, he's really glad that they saw through the plaintff BS. His decision had nothing to do with what he now knows and understand about the nursing profession and the health care industry.

I suspect if that situation would crop up today that this wouldn't even make it to court because it is a 'frivolous' lawsuit. Most judges have no sympathy for this kind of blatant money-grubbing anymore. Also, the attorney for the defense should have found this out during discovery. For shame!

Specializes in Med/Surg.

I don't care what other people's opinions are of me carrying are...I have heard it all, including that I will be a target if I have insurance...I would rather be a 'target' and not pay a dime for the settlement, versus pay huge attorney's fees, any possible settlement, etc.. out of my family's pocket. And I agree with the original poster, I do sleep a little better at night having insurance and knowing that my possible mistake would not come back to hurt my family. For that, it is worth paying $90 a year.

+ Add a Comment