Malpractice Insurance?

Nurses General Nursing

Published

Do you think it's a good idea for nurses to buy ? Why or why not?

Specializes in Critical Care/ICU.
But I do not recommend that your average nurse have any malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance is not worth it. Not because it costs too much, but because it is just too inviting to lawyers.

So are you not recommending it because it does nothing to protect your patients in the event of a mishap or are you not recommending it just to spite attorneys?

And btw, a reputable attorney would NEVER take a case on contingency if they didn't think it was a viable case.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Are you an RN?

I wonder what your qualifications are to give recommendations and advice on RN malpractice insurance? And to whom are you giving this advice?

Sure hope you have a disclaimer at your blog.

Your first post, James Huffman, sounds just like this ncbi study done about the reasons people sue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8002688

I posted the above link on a thread discussing open ICU visitation on another thread:

https://allnurses.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91361&page=6&pp=10

I would definitely say that every nurse should carry malpractice insurance (even student nurses). There are so many obstacles that nurses face every day in the workplace. Our licenses are always on the line.

So what are you saying? Too bad to the person and people who suffer due to a licensed professional's negligence? This is skirting accountability and borders on unethical.

Listen, if someone's negligence results in the maiming or death of me or someone I know, I EXPECT the responsible person to be held accountable. In this circumstance, you can't bring back a dead loved one and you can't undo permanent damage. The only thing left is monetary compensation.

1. Yes, I'm an RN.

2. I'm giving advice to any nurses who choose to heed it.

3. A disclaimer for what exactly?

4. As to "skirting accountability," please read my first post again, in which I encourage professional behavior, keeping up-to-date professionally, and not doing things we are not competent to do.

Jim Huffman, RN

Up Vote Up Vote ×
So are you not recommending it because it does nothing to protect your patients in the event of a mishap or are you not recommending it just to spite attorneys?

And btw, a reputable attorney would NEVER take a case on contingency if they didn't think it was a viable case.

1. My primary focus is toward nurses, in their own dealings with liability issues. How "protects patients" has not been established.

2. I have no interest in "spiting attorneys," other than that I wish to keep their business far away from me. Most professionals feel the same way.

3. Of course, any attorney (reputable or otherwise) will never take a contingency case if they didn't think it viable. The point I'm making regarding liability/malpractice insurance is that having it dramatically increases the chances that a contingency will suddenly seem a little more viable than it did previously.

Jim Huffman, RN

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU.

Malpractice insurance??? Australia is far less litigeous (sp? sue happy) than the US, we have a greater coverage by vicarious liability BUT when we join the Union we are automatically covered for malpractice. This is how important it is. You cannot join the union without this automatic coverage and yes it jacks up our fees and yes it causes some to rethink joining but it is hard to argue with people who every day come to the defence of RN's in trouble. It is also handy to have that resource. I have taken stat declarations to the union to have them check out the wording - something they are more than happy to do because they know that this will save them down the line.

I have heard the argument that the less you have to sue for the less likely you are to be sued and that is true for the majority of those who are in it for the money. Unfortunately not everyone sues for money - some do it out of justice, some for a grievance and some for sheer spite.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

[quote=You live from paycheck to paycheck. In other words, you don't have a lot of cash around. And let's imagine that you did something really wrong, and get sued. Suppose the jury found for the plaintiff, and ordered you to pay them $500,000. Where are you going to get the money? If you're like most people, you're going to declare bankruptcy. Relatively easy, relatively fast, and you no longer owe $500,000. And the lawyer gets no money, or very little. Neither does the plaintiff. End of story.

I would recommend everyone taking this advice to read their state's bankruptcy laws. There are several different types of bankruptcy and discharge of debt is available under #7. This also requires you to liquidate anything not on the exemption list(ex. house) and only protects your paycheck up to $500 a week for example(in Florida)......Just some things to think about. Depending on your state they may not be able to take your house but they can still place a lein on it so if you ever sell it they can collect from the proceeds of the sale. I personally would rather have my insurance company settle a case/defend me rather than go through a bankruptcy.

This issue is a case by case deal anyway. Some people I know, including myself, actually save money, invest in stocks and own their homes so some form of protection is required. Remember if your married you are not just protecting yourself but your spouse and joint holdings as well.

This is by no means professional advice, just my delusional ramblings based on my skewed sense of reality :)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in forensic psych, corrections.
Some people I know, including myself, actually save money, invest in stocks and own their homes so some form of protection is required.

Exactly. That was my point. I *do* have assets, I have significant retirement savings and a diversified stock portfolio, among other things. Although I might feel as if I'm living paycheck to paycheck, I actually have significant savings that need to be protected. That's why I carry insurance.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The one very important point that Mr. Huffman consistently fails to address in his arguments against liability insurance is this:

What if you act (unintentionally) in a manner that causes harm to a patient? Isn't that patient entitled to fair and just compensation for his/her injuries?

Would any of us utilize the services of an uninsured physician? I, for one, would not. Not because I believe him/her to be inferior, but because I wish to be fairly compensated should an error in judgement cost me my health/livelihood, etc.

I'm not advocating frivolous lawsuits, just personal responsibility on the part of the professional nurse.

If you are an employee of the hospital or other organization, you're acting as an "agent" of that organization, and your liability legally belongs to them, whether you were following policy/procedure or not. You're the employee -- your wrong is their wrong. It's different with MDs, CRNAs, etc. that are credentialed, independent practitioners with a priviledge to practice at a facility -- they're not employees or agents, and it's generally stated in consent documentation.

I agree with Mr. Huffman -- the nurses employed at my facility are encouraged to not carry their own independent policies. From back in my years as a hospital risk manager, I have direct knowledge that the "attorney" hired by the nurse company does nothing but muddy the water and make a difficult situation even more challenging.

In once instance the nurse was not even named as a defendent in the lawsuit, she irrationally freaked out and called her insurance company (we had no idea she had insurance -- God, to be able to go back in time and reverse some things on that one -- like hiring her in the first place!!!), an attorney became involved and within a couple of weeks the suit had been revised to add the nurse as a defendent in the case. The whole case almost went south for ALL OF US because of this nurse and her attorney.

Like someone else said, if it makes you sleep better at night, get it, but it's not necessary or recommended by most credible (i.e. from someone that isn't trying to benefit from your premium payment$) resources UNLESS you're an independent contractor or in a role (such as an upper management position) that exposes you to additional liabilty for employment practices, etc.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Exactly. That was my point. I *do* have assets, I have significant retirement savings and a diversified stock portfolio, among other things. Although I might feel as if I'm living paycheck to paycheck, I actually have significant savings that need to be protected. That's why I carry insurance.

And you're right to consider that. Anyone with significant business or personal assets may want for that reason.

I'd also point out that many may not have heard that IRAs and other such retirement accounts are now protected against creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. From the New York Times, April 4, 2005:

"A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday ruled that federal bankruptcy law shields individual retirement accounts from creditors. The decision gives middle-income consumers, for whom an I.R.A. is often the most significant retirement asset, the same protection in bankruptcy that higher-paid workers receive for their 401(k) plans and company pensions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05bizcourt.html?position=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1112824887-2zhO1TKMvCK1u62nQyfnjw

Jim Huffman, RN

Up Vote Up Vote ×
And you're right to consider that. Anyone with significant business or personal assets may want liability insurance for that reason.

I'd also point out that many may not have heard that IRAs and other such retirement accounts are now protected against creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. From the New York Times, April 4, 2005:

"A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday ruled that federal bankruptcy law shields individual retirement accounts from creditors. The decision gives middle-income consumers, for whom an I.R.A. is often the most significant retirement asset, the same protection in bankruptcy that higher-paid workers receive for their 401(k) plans and company pensions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05bizcourt.html?position=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1112824887-2zhO1TKMvCK1u62nQyfnjw

Jim Huffman, RN

Good point -- I guess I assume that folks know stuff like this.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment