Personal malpractice insurance....yes or no?

lauriesalRNC · Apr 7, 2005

I dont have it, mostly b/c it is EXTREMELY hard to find a nurse liable in a " birth injury " suit b/c as we all know most of the lawsuits that occur are bogus. In cases of legit lawsuits, usually it is STILL hard to find the nurse liable b/c in order to do so it would have to be proven that the nurse either had malicious intent to harm someone ( and not too many nurses actually do this!) or that the nurse was totally incompetent which also doesnt happen often. If you know how to read a strip and notify the doc accordingly and follow your L&D policy book, it is very difficult for anyone to find you guilty. In shoulder dystocia cases, unless you apply fundal pressure, the nurse really isnt liable. But again, that falls under knowing your policies....every L&D nurse knows not to apply fundal pressure for a dystocia , if you do then the jury SHOULD hang you. In cases of CP, studies show that most CP occurs as a result of infarcts in the brain prior to the mom ever going into labor so you;d have to be looking at a pretty crappy strip and the nurse totally ignoring it in order for her to be found guilty. No nurse that i know is going to sit there and watch a crappy strip and not intervene. Also where I live ( NJ) no nurse has ever been sued for the amt greater than what was covered by the hosp ins and found guilty... so i feel pretty safe about that. Now, I know I could pay $100 and have more coverage but to me I just dont think it would change anything.

I just picked up coverage this week actually. Most of my coworkers (in LDRP) don't have it, they throw out the lawyers will go after you if you have it argument... but some of these same nurses also don't hold any property in their name "just in case". Personally I'd rather have the peace of mind a personal policy provides. I'm a young, new nurse, I've got a good 30+ years of potential wages that could be garnished should a suit be filed and lost.
It's not about being a good nurse or a bad nurse; you can be the best nurse in the world and still have a case with a bad outcome.

Mahogany · May 10, 2005

In some Units, there is "normalization of diviance". Although standards of practice exists, when there is a shortage of "nursing leadership", and the docs. are allowed to create a new "Unit Policy" whenever they feel like, and there is a poor outcome, do not expect my hospital or nursing management to stand by you, the good nurse.

I do not know one way or the other, if m/p insurance would be advantageous, but what I do know is that you be legal-minded. You need to document as though an Attorney is always sitting over you. The docs. get to write retrospective notes, nurses don't.

midwife2b · Jun 22, 2005

Not sure if this helps, but my sister in law was deposed in a lawsuit several years ago when she worked in a psych facility. She did have her own malpractice insurance (1 million/3 million) and she thought she was "protected". Initially the lawsuit didn't specify her by name, but lumped "employees of xxx psych center working on ward c, 5/13/95". She was later named because the plaintiffs wanted to go to trial.

Let me tell you... it was a NIGHTMARE for her! Her personal malpractice insurance would not pay a dime until she liquidated all her personal assets. Most of her property was held in both her and my brothers names, so they were at a standstill for about 2 years. All that "protection" didn't kick in until she and my brother were almost penniless. Yes, they decided to sell all their jointly owned property because there were her personal attorney fees, etc. to pay.

She was the supervising RN on the unit and didn't have anything to do with the actual patient event, but "should have known" about it. Very complicated and unfortunate case that eventually was settled just before the trial began. They are back on their feet again, and she has since become a FNP, but she will be the first to say NO! to personal malpractice insurance if you are a staff nurse.

Maybe laws differ in different states...

James Huffman · Jun 22, 2005

Not sure if this helps, but my sister in law was deposed in a lawsuit several years ago when she worked in a psych facility. She did have her own malpractice insurance (1 million/3 million) and she thought she was "protected". Initially the lawsuit didn't specify her by name, but lumped "employees of xxx psych center working on ward c, 5/13/95". She was later named because the plaintiffs wanted to go to trial.
Let me tell you... it was a NIGHTMARE for her! Her personal malpractice insurance would not pay a dime until she liquidated all her personal assets. Most of her property was held in both her and my brothers names, so they were at a standstill for about 2 years. All that "protection" didn't kick in until she and my brother were almost penniless. Yes, they decided to sell all their jointly owned property because there were her personal attorney fees, etc. to pay.
She was the supervising RN on the unit and didn't have anything to do with the actual patient event, but "should have known" about it. Very complicated and unfortunate case that eventually was settled just before the trial began. They are back on their feet again, and she has since become a FNP, but she will be the first to say NO! to personal malpractice insurance if you are a staff nurse.
Maybe laws differ in different states...

I'm a little baffled by this, but let me throw out a few thoughts.

I don't think that malpractice insurance is a good idea for most nurses, but there's something not right about this story. In the first place, ANYONE should read a policy (of any type) very carefully. If there's a provision in a policy such as was mentioned above, the "liquidation of personal assets, such a policy should be completely avoided. Having said that, I've NEVER heard of an insurance policy -- malpractice or otherwise -- that only kicked in after such a provision. Are you sure this was a malpractice policy? And did the policy (after their "liquidation of assets") reimburse them for the assets?

If it was a malpractice policy, and if it was structured like that, the issue is probably not one of state law, but of a very, very bad contract. (Bad for the nurse, not for the company).

As I said, something's not right about this scenario. Malpractice insurance is not a good idea, but this was not a normal malpractice policy.

Jim Huffman, RN

SmilingBluEyes · Jun 22, 2005

I was wondering where you were, James!

rebeccainlv · Aug 17, 2005

My husband and I have all of our assets covered under a umbrella policy. We have many real estate investment properties, a small car collection and many different types of investment accounts and everything is covered under the umbrella policy. Our assets and estate is totally protected from any type of law suit. This includes auto accidents, tenants sueing us or patients sueing me. It's reasonably priced and we're protected for more than just medical law suits.

You can get the umbrella policies through your homeowners or auto insurance companies.

lawc2315 · Sep 7, 2005

I have a better cure for frivolous lawsuits. Cap the lawyers fees. I think they should get 5000 and not a penny more. And if they lose, the lawyers have to pay the dr/nurse or whoever plus the lawyer fees. And the person who brought the suit has to put 10 percent of their earnings for the last year in a fund to help (pick a charity).

That will never happen. The lawmakers that would make laws to protect us are the lawyers! (lol)

I totally agree though, as a nation we should raise enough heck to help bring more restrictions to all the lawsuit happy people. What's even more disgusting is the "ambulance chasers" with all their ads on TV.

Most lawyers take their hearts out of of their work and make it strictly a money making enterprise. Not downgrading lawyers, I have friends, that is the way it is.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Sep 7, 2005

Remember too if you are reported to SBON for practice issues, personal nursing insurance policy will pay for consultation/ representation but not work policy.

James Huffman · Sep 7, 2005

I have a better cure for frivolous lawsuits. Cap the lawyers fees. I think they should get 5000 and not a penny more. And if they lose, the lawyers have to pay the dr/nurse or whoever plus the lawyer fees. And the person who brought the suit has to put 10 percent of their earnings for the last year in a fund to help (pick a charity).

That will never happen. The lawmakers that would make laws to protect us are the lawyers! (lol)

I totally agree though, as a nation we should raise enough heck to help bring more restrictions to all the lawsuit happy people. What's even more disgusting is the "ambulance chasers" with all their ads on TV.

Most lawyers take their hearts out of of their work and make it strictly a money making enterprise. Not downgrading lawyers, I have friends, that is the way it is.

1. An even better idea, and more realistic: adopt the English system of "loser pays." That is, if someone sues a nurse, physician, or whatever, and loses the case, the one suing (the plaintiff) pays the legal fees for the defendant. In American law, the plaintiff usually has nothing to lose in filing a suit. This would ensure that people would only files cases in which there was a reasonable chance of winning, and in which there were reasonable grounds for the suit.

2. As far as the lawyer ads on TV, again, these attorneys are just taking advantage of the system (and as the situation is now, nothing wrong with that). It makes sense for their clients to file even frivolous suits, because the client stands to lose nothing by such a suit.

3. Let's not be too hard on lawyers who make it a "money-making enterprise." That's what they're in business for. Nurses are in business to make money, too. I invite those who say they are not to send their checks to me. I will gladly take the filthy lucre off their hands. :rotfl:

Jim Huffman, RN