Received Letter In Mail About Hospital Lawsuit At Old Job

[dreamshake18]

I got a letter in the mail today from a law office that represents the hospital I no longer work for (Stopped working there over a year ago). The estate of a deceased patient is filing a lawsuit against the hospital, and I apparently cared for them at some point. I don’t recognize their name, and therefore have no remembrance of the care I provided to them. They asked me to contact them to discuss the care, but I’m not sure what I would say if I don’t even remember the patient? This has never happened to me so I’m just looking for advice. Do I need to do anything about this?

[Orca, ADN, ASN, RN]

1 hour ago, sleepwalker said:

I contacted my malpractice insurance and they said it wasn't an issue for them to be involved in since I wasn't being sued..just named.

I don't understand this statement from your insurer. If you are named, you have been sued. 

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

42 minutes ago, Orca said:

I don't understand this statement from your insurer. If you are named, you have been sued. 

I believe the distinction is named as part of a larger lawsuit vs sued as an individual. Many times if you read the fine print, personal malpractice insurance doesn’t kick in when the employer’s insurance is involved. 

[sleepwalker, MSN, NP]

47 minutes ago, Rose_Queen said:

I believe the distinction is named as part of a larger lawsuit vs sued as an individual. Many times if you read the fine print, personal malpractice insurance doesn’t kick in when the employer’s insurance is involved. 

exactly

[JKL33]

1 hour ago, Orca said:

I don't understand this statement from your insurer. If you are named, you have been sued. 

Yep. Named =  sued. Being named along with a corporation is being sued as an individual and needing to defend yourself apart from whatever defense the company mounts for themselves.

Named is named. Sued. As an individual.

The OP situation doesn't sound like being named at all. Named has nothing to do with it. It sounds like the hospital's attorneys looking for information to defend themselves. This was the hospital's attorney's contacting him/her - not the plaintiff attorney.

[londonflo]

39 minutes ago, sleepwalker said:

Many times if you read the fine print, personal malpractice insurance doesn’t kick in when the employer’s insurance is involved. 

I am confused. I thought an RN malpractice insurance would  specifially support the individual nurse, not just as an employed nurse for a hospital. Why then would someone purchase malpractice insurance? 

https://www.cmfgroup.com/about-cm-f/cmf-partners/allnurses-members/

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

Respondeat superior - the hospital covers the nurse to cover their butts. 

Usually personal malpractice insurance adds other benefits, such as coverage for BON hearings. Many people think they’ll get their own personal lawyer for a lawsuit, but again, the fine print is key. 

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

2 hours ago, JKL33 said:

Named is named. Sued. As an individual.

Not necessarily; many, many times names get dropped as discovery progresses. Often the dropped ones are nurses or other peripheral personnel after a perspicacious legal nurse consultant reviews the records. 
That said, though, I have seen cases where the hospital is held liable for nursing actions (or lack thereof).
Since nurses do not tend to have deep pockets  or huge malpractice policies the hospital insurance carriers don’t often go to the trouble of recovering some of their losses from those individuals .. but they can, no matter whether somebody says “the hospital will cover you.” Don’t ever go without malpractice coverage because “somebody’s told me that they won’t sue you if you don’t have a big policy.” Not true. 

[JKL33]

8 minutes ago, Hannahbanana said:

Not necessarily; many, many times names get dropped as discovery progresses. Often the dropped ones are nurses or other peripheral personnel after a perspicacious legal nurse consultant reviews the records. 

Can you clarify what that person's status is if they are not dropped?

Is it incorrect that unless/until they are dropped they are....being sued?

 

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

2 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

10 minutes ago, Hannahbanana said:

Not necessarily; many, many times names get dropped as discovery progresses. Often the dropped ones are nurses or other peripheral personnel after a perspicacious legal nurse consultant reviews the records. 

Can you clarify what that person's status is if they are not dropped?

Is it incorrect that unless/until they are dropped they are....being sued?

Not an atty and don’t play one on AN.

Often the list at the top of the page is long, and not everyone stays on it as the case progresses through discovery. If the name remains after mediation/negotiations fail and the case goes to trial, they’re still on the list and are the defendants, yes.

I have seen people not dropped but not included in a final settlement/judgment because the judge or jury found them not at fault, or because ongoing negotiations between plaintiff and defense counsel agreed on it. 

[Mids]

Hi, there!  I work for an attorney's office (we represent the healthcare providers), and I frequently send out these types of letters. 

You 100% do not have to respond.  The people I try to contact usually do not.  If my boss thinks it's worth the effort/cost, we will sometimes try to track down the person, but a lot of times we do not.  The only way you would be forced to respond is if you are served with a subpoena or receive summons via certified mail, etc.

My main advice is that if the letter is stating that you are part of the suit/named as a defendant, I would respond.  If they are just looking to talk to you as a witness, you can either respond or just blow it off.  Though, blowing it off can result in you being subpoenaed for a deposition down the road.  However, since it is the defense attorney, they will normally not subpoena you to take your deposition without talking to you first as they do not want your testimony memorialized without knowing first if you will be detrimental to their case.

However, if you want the attempts to contact you to stop, just go ahead and answer it.  A lot of times you can just tell the attorney that you do not remember the patient, and that will be the end of it.  They would normally not call you as a witness if you do not remember the patient.  I say normally because sometimes they will still have you review the records and give testimony based on what you charted.

Also, if you left your job on bad terms and aren't worried about saying that to the attorney, tell them for sure.  If you have a bad opinion of your employer, they will most likely not use you as a witness as that can be damaging to their case if they think you may bad mouth their client on the stand or in a deposition.

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

On 5/5/2021 at 3:29 PM, TriciaJ said:

If you feel comfortable, you can contact the attorney to say you have no recollection of the person and your charting will have to stand on its own.

Nah, never never never contact the opposing attorney at all for anything unless you run it past your own attorney first— who is 99.9% guaranteed to say “Hell, no,” and write something without you. 

[JKL33]

28 minutes ago, Hannahbanana said:

Nah, never never never contact the opposing attorney

The OP's situation does not involve an opposing attorney.

 

39 minutes ago, Hannahbanana said:

I have seen people not dropped but not included in a final settlement/judgment because the judge or jury found them not at fault, or because ongoing negotiations between plaintiff and defense counsel agreed on it. 

Thanks. I think the point of attempted clarification was in reference to someone saying there's no big deal if one is only named. And the point is that there's nothing blow-off about being named. Being named, at least until things shake out further, means needing an attorney who has a fiduciary duty to the one named and not just an attorney whose fiduciary duty is to other named parties/entities such as the hospital. Etc.