Liabilty Insurance

Some places may require it. Even if they don't require it, or offer some sort of employer based insurance, it's a good idea to get your own. The cost is minimal. Like, under $100/yr. Possibly under $50.

Depending on what you do, it is a good idea to get your own - because employer's policy is so full of exclusions, should something happen, they are likely to leave you on your own. I only work directly with patients a few days a month, so I hope I don't need one and I didn't buy one. Had I worked in retail full-time, I would have bought it. It is about $100 your first year and then goes up to about $150 as you get further out of school, which is a very reasonable cost. As a student you can get it also, much cheaper (and with a discount through APhA if you are a member). Some places want you to have it when you go on rotation... they are very few, though. There have been instances of interns working somewhere being sued... it's not always just the pharmacist (though most commonly it is).

Definitely a good idea to get! I bought mine from www.hpso.com and it is very reasonably priced. 🙂

Here is the deal:

It depends on who you work for. If you work for a major corporation, Like CVS, Walgreens, Costco, etc. There is NO point in wasting your money. These policies only cover the excess of what your employer does not cover. Since there is probably no way for a pharmacist to commit malpractice on such a scale as to bankrupt one of the above named corporations, you will pay premiums and never be able to collect any of the benefits. There are some plans that will represent you in appearance at the State Board if your are disciplined.

Old Timer said:

Here is the deal:

It depends on who you work for. If you work for a major corporation, Like CVS, Walgreens, Costco, etc. There is NO point in wasting your money. These policies only cover the excess of what your employer does not cover. Since there is probably no way for a pharmacist to commit malpractice on such a scale as to bankrupt one of the above named corporations, you will pay premiums and never be able to collect any of the benefits. There are some plans that will represent you in appearance at the State Board if your are disciplined.

Click to expand...

There's always a clause that the company could then sue the pharmacist to recover the costs. It is usually never done, but I am aware of its existence.

Also, suppose you are directly named in a suit and the company, for whatever the reason, is not. What would a company gain by covering that pharmacist? Is there coverage for direct suits? That would have to be stated in a contract.

Nevertheless, I always feel more comfortable having my own coverage even as an intern.

no-see-um said:

There's always a clause that the company could then sue the pharmacist to recover the costs. It is usually never done, but I am aware of its existence.

Click to expand...

Not in the real world. On what grounds? Not a goo reason.

no-see-um said:

Also, suppose you are directly named in a suit and the company, for whatever the reason, is not. What would a company gain by covering that pharmacist? Is there coverage for direct suits? That would have to be stated in a contract.

Click to expand...

The trial lawyer wants to make money. There is NO chance, not one in 1 bazillion that the plaintiff would sue you and not sue the 70 billion dollar corporation.

no-see-um said:

Nevertheless, I always feel more comfortable having my own coverage even as an intern.

Click to expand...

This is the USA. You have the freedom to do so. It's just a waste of money. If you work for a smaller company or a mom and pop type store where they might not have the highest liability insurance then getting the policy would be beneficial.

Old Timer said:

Here is the deal:

It depends on who you work for. If you work for a major corporation, Like CVS, Walgreens, Costco, etc. There is NO point in wasting your money. These policies only cover the excess of what your employer does not cover. Since there is probably no way for a pharmacist to commit malpractice on such a scale as to bankrupt one of the above named corporations, you will pay premiums and never be able to collect any of the benefits. There are some plans that will represent you in appearance at the State Board if your are disciplined.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. I don't think its a waste of money & the amount of money I've spent over 30 years on my malpractice has been well spent, IMO.

When your employment ends with a company, their liability ends, but yours does not. Having your own malpractice insurance covers you for all the years you work & you can buy "tail" coverage - particularly useful for those who work in fertility or neonatal pharmacy.

Cellycel said:

I was wonderinng if we wiil have to have insurance of this type while working in retail or in another capacity. If so is it an outa pocket expense. thanks Fam!!

Click to expand...

I have actually carried a technician policy for the last few years, ever since I heard a lawyer at a conference discussing how there have been cases where the suit went after the technicians involved as well as the pharmacist and the corporations. I'm older and not your typical tech (have family, husband, house, reasonable amount of retirement savings already, etc.) and I just sleep better knowing that I have something to protect my financial assets in the admittedly very unlikely event of a lawsuit.

sdn1977 said:

I don't agree. I don't think its a waste of money & the amount of money I've spent over 30 years on my malpractice has been well spent, IMO.

When your employment ends with a company, their liability ends, but yours does not. Having your own malpractice insurance covers you for all the years you work & you can buy "tail" coverage - particularly useful for those who work in fertility or neonatal pharmacy.

Click to expand...

It depends on who you work for. If you work for CVS, it is a waste of money. You are covered by their insurance (though they probably self insure) for whatever you do while you are employed by them except for gross negligence, which your policy wont cover either. There is not policy I have seen that covers anything except the overage from your employers coverage. Since there is no way I can make a large enough mistake to bankrupt a 70 billion dollar corporation so I will never be able to collect a penny even I was sued.

When I worked for independent pharmacies that had limited liability, most were five million tops, I always had a policy. So again, IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU WORK FOR. If you are doing fertility or neonatal or giving injections or MTM and you are not under the umbrella of a Fortune 500 company, you should protect yourself.

You've got your own opinion, but Old Timer....I've been in the business as long as you have & you & I disagree.

I've had my own malpractice my whole career & I'd recommend it in a heartbeat & I don't think it depends on who you work for - CVS, Kaiser or HCA - none of them!

I did not say you were wrong, I said I disagreed - which is a statement of opinion (hence, the..."I think"...). I would appreciate equal respect for my opinions as I've given yours.

We must agree to disagree here.

What is it...$150 per year? Get it and forget about it.

Old Timer said:

Since there is no way I can make a large enough mistake to bankrupt a 70 billion dollar corporation so I will never be able to collect a penny even I was sued.

Click to expand...

You forget that a multibillion dollar corporation also has plenty of resources to turn on you. After all, why would they put their money on the line? You are expendable. Unless you are CEO, but even then, Purdue Pharma's didn't get off quite that easy.

An old acquaintance of mine from the days since before I was a pharmacist and she a lawyer has seen a case like that already in the two years she has been in practice. If you make a mistake and in the proces violate some minor company policy that no one ever reads and to follow it would make your daily work impossible - but it is already grounds to make you stand on your own. After all, you violated the company's policy - they are the victim here too. Why should they be held responsible for the harm done to them? That's why it's best to protect your own back. No one is going to worry about it other than yourself. And maybe your parents/spouse. Sorry, world ain't fair, especially not when the money is concerned.

Old Timer said:

Not in the real world. On what grounds? Not a goo reason.

Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to dismiss this. It's been done before. And it's in the law that the company could sue an employee who was negligent to recover costs of defense services and harm to the company, etc. I'm not a lawyer by training and I take it you are not, as well, but this law exists and is known to most malpractice attorneys out there and if I get time, I'll find it for you.

EDIT: Just to point you in the right direction on this issue regarding the possibility of vicarious liability of companies when pharmacists are accused of mapractice, CH. 8 of Richard Abood's text entitled, "Pharmacy Practice and the Law" 4th Edn. states (on p.322): that "the employer does [bolded for emphasis] have the right to sue the employee for contribution". Then it notes, perhaps correctly, that this 'seldom occurs'. I just like to play it safe and cover all bases. There are a lot of things you could depend on a company for, but your career and livelihood should be in your own hands.

Old Timer said:

The trial lawyer wants to make money. There is NO chance, not one in 1 bazillion that the plaintiff would sue you and not sue the 70 billion dollar corporation.

Click to expand...

HOWEVER, if the claim is against the pharmacist in particular, and is not related to the pharmacist's employment, pharmacists have been named individually in suits before- usually along with the company, but I wouldn't bet my career and livelihood on who a plaintiff deems necessary to sue when the cost of puchasing my own insurance is extremely reasonable. You better just hope the company is in synch with you and that they don't claim that most of the fault resides with the pharmacist for gross negligence outside of a company error, when the jurry is to assign fault. There is vicarious liability on the part of the company only to a certain extent. The rest may be YOURS!

Because of the low costs to purchase insurance, it's not a bad investment. But the flip-side would be that it could be a target of plaintiff attorneys.

Hels2007 said:

You forget that a multibillion dollar corporation also has plenty of resources to turn on you. After all, why would they put their money on the line? You are expendable. Unless you are CEO, but even then, Purdue Pharma's didn't get off quite that easy.

An old acquaintance of mine from the days since before I was a pharmacist and she a lawyer has seen a case like that already in the two years she has been in practice. If you make a mistake and in the proces violate some minor company policy that no one ever reads and to follow it would make your daily work impossible - but it is already grounds to make you stand on your own. After all, you violated the company's policy - they are the victim here too. Why should they be held responsible for the harm done to them? That's why it's best to protect your own back. No one is going to worry about it other than yourself. And maybe your parents/spouse. Sorry, world ain't fair, especially not when the money is concerned.

Click to expand...

I really should read all the posts before posting, myself. This says it well...

Go ahead and buy the insurance if it will make you feel better. Just realize you will never use it (even if you are sued). Why do you think it is only $150.00 per year? They are actually insuring so little risk.

First and foremost companies are interested in silence. They DO NOT want these claims to go to trial. They will mostly be settled. Are you aware that almost 95% of malpractice suits that go to trial are won by the defendant? That's because the obvious ones are settled.

If you dispense the wrong drug, or give the wrong directions or don't catch a drug interaction, your employer will settle the claim. Your insurance will pay nothing.

Go ask your law school friends to find out how many times a major drug chain or hospital sued their employee to recoup money in a law suit. And remember if it's gross negligence, your dinky $150.00 policy DOES NOT cover this.

It does not matter if the company tries to blame you. They employed you and they are responsible for your actions as a representative of the company.

Again, I renew my argument. If you work for a Fortune 500 company you have no need for a personal liability policy as you will never ever ever ever in the real (as opposed to theoretical) world be able to collect on the benefits. If you work for a smaller corporation or practice in any way outside the scope of the Fortune 500 company, by all means buy the insurance.

Old Timer said:

It does not matter if the company tries to blame you. They employed you and they are responsible for your actions as a representative of the company.

Click to expand...

Vicarious liability only goes so far. They are allowed to sue you if they so choose and are allowed to cut you loose if you violated company policies in the process.

Are you a lawyer? Do you dispute that the employer has the right to sue the employee for contribution?

It may not occur very often, but why take that chance?

(And btw, there are only about 3 pharmacy chains that are "Fortune 500 companies". You should be a little more wholistic and encompassing when discussing liability insurance. There are many different work settings...)

And, btw, a lot of pharmacy schools require that their students purchase their own.

Why you are so vociferously dismissive of liability insurance for pharmacists is beyond me. But as SDN1977 says, let's agree to disagree.

Here's an article for you, Old Timer. You could say that they're actually targeting the individual insurance policies of pharmacists, but fault is fault and here are instances of 1) Hospital being found to NOT be at fault while pharmacist is. 2) Hospital sues pharmacist. I don't think you could claim that this 'never happens' after this. (and this article is from a while back). I think it's important for pharmacists to have liability coverage that is in their individual corner - for instance one that covers contingencies noted in the final paragraphs of the article. Keep in mind that insurances would like to not have to pay if they find anything wrong with the situation and their agreement with the company/hospital.

The 'I'm a pharmacist, I'm poor' approach (not having liability coverage, and your basic argument) is not going to cut it when it comes time for naming defendants in a malpractice lawsuit. Pharmacists are being sued more and more, because folks are realising that pharmacists are doing pretty well. Why not have a policy that protects you as an individual?:


SOURCE: http://www.ashp.org/s_ashp/article_news.asp?CID=167&DID=2024&id=2944

Pharmacists, Technician Found Liable for Millions in Medication Error

[June 15, 2002, AJHP News]

Donna Young

BETHESDA, MD, 06 June 2002 — A jury award of several million dollars in damages in a lawsuit brought against two Massachusetts hospital pharmacists and a pharmacy technician, but not the hospital, has some pharmacists concerned that professionals will be targeted as the "deep pockets" by people seeking large damage awards.

Robert Pavlan, a Massachusetts pharmacist and an attorney, said many states in the mid-1980s passed tort reform laws that set caps on the damage awards against nonprofit institutions. For example, the Massachusetts Charitable Immunity Statute discourages people from suing hospitals, churches, and other nonprofit institutions by limiting damage awards against those groups to $20,000. That cap, Pavlan said, is one of the lowest in the nation.

How a lawsuit turned personal. The pharmacist, pharmacy supervisor, and technician named in the lawsuit were sued by the parents of a child who received an overdose of medication in 1997 at Children's Hospital Boston.

The technician did not dilute a dose of enalaprilat, an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, that a physician had prescribed to control the prematurely born infant's blood pressure. This alleged error by the technician, which resulted in a 750-mcg dose rather than the 6-mcg dose that had been ordered, was not caught by the pharmacist before the medication was dispensed.

Michelle Davis, a Children's Hospital spokeswoman, said that one of the institution's pharmacists reported the error, and the hospital then reported the event to the state health department, which conducted an investigation.

The family claimed the medication error caused the infant to suffer neurologic damage. But the hospital alleges that the child was born with the condition.

A Suffolk County jury awarded the family $7.1 million in damages in March.

While Children's Hospital escaped being named in the suit as a defendant, Davis said the hospital's malpractice insurer provided the defense for the pharmacists and technician under the hospital's liability coverage.

The hospital's insurer has filed posttrial motions, including one for a new trial judgment, Davis said.

At press time, the judge presiding over the case had not ruled on the motions.

Ramifications. Pavlan said the lawsuit has left many Massachusetts pharmacists uneasy and worried that they are "easy targets" for people seeking damage awards.

The lawsuit has caused some pharmacists, he said, to consider investing in more professional liability insurance.

Pavlan, who travels between Northeastern University School of Pharmacy in Boston and Western University School of Pharmacy in Pomona, California, to teach pharmacy law courses, suggested that pharmacists, to protect their assets from large jury awards, make themselves "paper poor" by transferring ownership of assets to a spouse or other family member.

But pharmacist David Brushwood, a professor at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy and an attorney, said the Massachusetts lawsuit should not be evaluated seriously until it has undergone the appeals process.

"There are all kinds of crazy things that happen at trial-court level, and oftentimes they get reversed by courts of appeal," he said. "All [the plaintiffs in the case] have now is a piece of paper saying these pharmacists and technician owe them $7.1 million. That doesn't get them $7.1 million. It's just a piece of paper. They are going to have to execute on that judgment in some way, and they are not going to be able to do it probably until at least the first appeal has been heard."

Brushwood said the Massachusetts law that protects hospitals and other nonprofit organizations from paying out large jury awards is inadequate because it fails to protect employees.

"The Massachusetts legislature enacted this legislation for a reason, and the reason was to limit liability," he said. "When the legislature limited the liability of nonprofit hospitals, they knew that nonprofit hospitals employed people. And if the law is that all you have to do is sue one or two of the employees of the hospital and not the hospital to get around the limitation, then there is no limitation. That renders the law without purpose. And most laws are supposed to be interpreted so as to have a purpose."

David W. Grauer, an Ohio attorney and a pharmacist, said most lawsuits filed in his state involving a hospital medication error generally name the hospital as a defendant, not just a pharmacist.

Ohio's laws require all parties involved in lawsuits to seek mediation before a case can be filed, said Grauer, who teaches pharmacy jurisprudence at Ohio State University College of Pharmacy in Columbus.

But, he added, pharmacists should carry an individual professional liability policy just in case they are named as a defendant and the case goes to trial.

Influence of liability coverage. Samuel A. Hoagland, an Idaho attorney and a pharmacist, said only about 10% of civil lawsuits go to trial. Most cases, he said, are settled out of court.

The amount demanded by a plaintiff and the amount actually recovered under a damage award are seldom the same, said Hoagland, who teaches pharmacy law courses at Idaho State University School of Pharmacy in Pocatello.

"There is usually a negotiation process where the attorneys take a look at how much liability coverage a defendant has, and it is generally settled from there," he said.

Attorneys are never allowed to discuss in front of a jury the amount a defendant has in liability coverage, Hoagland added. To do so, he said, would cause the case to result in a mistrial.

Douglas J. Pisano, who has a doctorate degree in law, policy, and society and is dean of the School of Pharmacy at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences at Worcester, said that, if a pretrial hearing determines that a case has merit, the defendant will usually attempt to settle.

"If the case has no merit, those who are being sued are the first ones to say 'Let's go to trial.' It's a strategic issue," he said. "It's very interesting how most people can be made right if the numbers look OK.

For instance, how much is it going to cost you to get better? There aren't a lot of cases that go to trial." Those few cases that go all the way to a court set the precedent, he added, and that influences the subsequent cases to settle.

Pisano said pharmacists should never rely on their employer's insurance alone.

"The company's insurance is the company's and they pay the premium; [a pharmacist] is the licensee," he said. "The protections of being an employee are no longer as well defined as they used to be. If it can be proven that you have not followed the policy procedure manual that your company, your hospital, has asked you to live by, then there is a good case for the insurance company not to cover you."

A hospital that is forced to pay on a jury award or settlement, Pisano said, in some cases sues a pharmacist or other employee to recoup the financial loss.

"There's more and more of that coming down the pike," he said.

Lawsuits from hospitals. Pharmacist Kenneth R. Baker, an attorney and vice president of Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company of Algona, Iowa, said a pharmacist in Nebraska was countersued by her hospital after it was sued in two separate cases that involved the same type of medication error. The pharmacist had twice in one day approved the incorrect dispensing of 14% sodium chloride injection in place of the 0.9% product, Baker said.

One of the cases was settled by the hospital for $900,000. A jury awarded the second case's plaintiff $600,000 in damages. Afterward, the hospital sued the pharmacist to recover its $1.5 million, Baker said. The pharmacist had an individual policy that covered $1 million per case and $3 million aggregate.

"We think that [action] sent a bad message to everybody else working there," Baker said. "The physicians were quite nervous as well. What [the hospital] said was 'We are only going after you because you have insurance.' It's a problem with the excess policy. But generally, people are not going to sue you only because you do have a policy."

In another case in which both the hospital and a pharmacist were sued, Baker said, the hospital was in financial debt and filed for bankruptcy before the case was settled.

By the time the lawyers discussed a possible settlement, "there was nothing left but the pharmacist's individual policy," he said.

Protection. Pharmacist Joseph L. Fink III, a professor at the University of Kentucky and an attorney, said individual liability policies cover a hospital pharmacist who also works at a community pharmacy that might not have liability protection for part-time employees.

Fink said most individual polices are fairly inexpensive, with premiums generally priced between $100 and $200 annually.

"You are working one day per year to pay your malpractice insurance premium, and it gives you a lot of peace of mind," he said.

Pharmacists and technicians should carefully choose the type of individual liability policy that is right for them, Fink said.

A good policy, he added, should cover at least $1 million per claim, because "you could have multiple claims joined together out of one incident."

The best way to buy a policy is through a professional membership organization, Fink said.

"They will typically have their attorneys look through the provisions in the insurance contract to see that all the good stuff is there and all the bad stuff is minimized before they'll put their seal of endorsement on it," he said. Also, professional societies can offer a relatively low premium because insurers give them a group rate.

Fink said pharmacists and technicians should watch out for policies that include a right-to-settle clause.

"A right-to-settle clause essentially says the insurance company can settle the claim without consulting you," he said. "And that's bad because how does the general public perceive an out-of-court settlement? 'Oh, he knew he was going to lose.' Whereas for the insurance company, it is purely a financial decision: Is it cheaper to go to trial or cheaper to settle?"

Last, a policy should also include a provision that says the insurance company will cover a pharmacist or technician for any lost income because of time spent away from the job to participate in preparation of his or her defense, said Fink.

"Is it valuable for your insurance company to have you involved in the defense? You bet it is. You were there. They weren't," he said. "You can spend a lot of time working with your attorney preparing for trial and that will mean you're missing work."

LOL - glad I read your post. I was just about to post and say, "Oh my law professor says we should have the coverage," but you've done it for me. I'm taking Dr. Fink's Legal/Ethical issues course right now and think his advice is sound. Thanks for posting it. 🙂

no-see-um said:

Protection. Pharmacist Joseph L. Fink III, a professor at the University of Kentucky and an attorney, said individual liability policies cover a hospital pharmacist who also works at a community pharmacy that might not have liability protection for part-time employees.

Fink said most individual polices are fairly inexpensive, with premiums generally priced between $100 and $200 annually.

"You are working one day per year to pay your malpractice insurance premium, and it gives you a lot of peace of mind," he said.

Pharmacists and technicians should carefully choose the type of individual liability policy that is right for them, Fink said.

A good policy, he added, should cover at least $1 million per claim, because "you could have multiple claims joined together out of one incident."

The best way to buy a policy is through a professional membership organization, Fink said.

"They will typically have their attorneys look through the provisions in the insurance contract to see that all the good stuff is there and all the bad stuff is minimized before they'll put their seal of endorsement on it," he said. Also, professional societies can offer a relatively low premium because insurers give them a group rate.

Fink said pharmacists and technicians should watch out for policies that include a right-to-settle clause.

"A right-to-settle clause essentially says the insurance company can settle the claim without consulting you," he said. "And that's bad because how does the general public perceive an out-of-court settlement? 'Oh, he knew he was going to lose.' Whereas for the insurance company, it is purely a financial decision: Is it cheaper to go to trial or cheaper to settle?"
Last, a policy should also include a provision that says the insurance company will cover a pharmacist or technician for any lost income because of time spent away from the job to participate in preparation of his or her defense, said Fink.

"Is it valuable for your insurance company to have you involved in the defense? You bet it is. You were there. They weren't," he said. "You can spend a lot of time working with your attorney preparing for trial and that will mean you're missing work."

Click to expand...

If you read my posts carefully, you will see I agree with what the attorney's say. I'm just saying if you work for one of the majors you don't. It's not that hard.

I have been a pharmacist for 25 years. I have never been sued (Thank God) and I was only involved in one serious incident. I have always had my own coverage until I went to work for CVS. I learned during the one incident, my coverage would only begin at the end of my employers coverage. Again, that is why the coverage is soooooo cheap.

Willful violation of company policy would be considered gross negligence and your little dinky policy does not cover that. No insurance policy covers that.

As for the bizarre laws of Massachusetts, I would recommend anyone in that state who practices for a non-profit institution to have a very strong policy because you are on the line.

Your article is over five years old. I wonder what the end result of that case was. In a lawsuit, everyone gets sued, the Company, the pharmacist, the tech, the cashier who wings them up.

So I have already said:
Buy it if make you feel more comfortable
Buy it you work for a small employer or practice in an unusual setting.
Buy it with knowledge it provides very little protection. More like the illusion of protection.

What good would these polices have done the pharmacist in Massachusetts? There is a $1,000,000.00 cap and he got clipped for $7,100,000.00. Like it matters he owed 6.1 instead of 7.1 million. This is the problem with discussions like this. Theoretical vs actual. Theoretically you are correct, actually in reality you are not.

These companies are making a fortune selling these polices and their exposure is limited.

Ask some of your lawyer friends to search and see how often pharmacists get sued, what they get sued for and how the cases play out.

All4MyDaughter said:

LOL - glad I read your post. I was just about to post and say, "Oh my law professor says we should have the coverage," but you've done it for me. I'm taking Dr. Fink's Legal/Ethical issues course right now and think his advice is sound. Thanks for posting it. 🙂

Click to expand...

Wow what a coincidence! Looks like a good course! He sounds like a smart and highly astute, professor of pharmacy law. 👍