-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
best pharmacist malpractice insurance
Started by nafcillin
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
A better question to add to this has anyone had to use thier malpractice insurance and was it worth it to have.
At the prices they charge, what's the harm in getting it? Much better than being on the hook for a few million.
To the OP: APhA and ASHP both have discounted carriers, you might want to look into them.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
no the argument against it is that a pt and their attorneys won't bother going after you because, under respondeat superior, it's much more advantageous to go after the entity that employs you which has much deeper pockets. You'd be a defendant in-name only and 99% of these will be settled out of court.
Anyone know if pharmacists fall under the $250k legal liability cap in CA and other states? If that's the case, a plantiff would be stupid/crazy to even go to trial....token settlement and that's the end of that.
That is true, but respondeat superior does not always apply, especially in cases where official protocols were not followed. I'm not saying that pharmacists routinely go against corporate policy willingly, but I think you would be hard pressed to find one who follows every policy to the "T" all the time. If the courts find that a policy that would have otherwise prevented the tort from occurring was not followed, then it is not unlikely that the court would waive liability for the corporation, and the corporation would no longer bear responsibility for the actions of the pharmacist.
I'd argue that even if official protocol isn't followed, that alone doesn't absolve the overarching entity from liability. For example, if your hospital requires all orders to be submitted electronically but a medical resident comes to your window and asks for something that would be crushed/administered by G-tube but ends up giving it via IV (they never had a G-tube to begin with) and that pt dies...the hospital is still liable even if official protocols weren't followed.
If a janitor cleans a floor and forgets to put a "wet floor" sign per protocol, the hospital is still liable.
The way the law was explained to me was that the employee has to make a HUGE deviation from any semblance of protocol....if a pharmacists gets in his car, drives to a bank, robs it and kills someone in the process while still clocked in at work and in his white coat, then the employing entity would not be liable.
Do you think any plaintiff attorney would ever let the mega rich corporation off the hook in order to bankrupt the pharmacist and never collect a dime??? And, if your violation was so egregious, you would be probably not be covered by the malpractice insurance anyway....
well the guy who went to jail for the saline chemo error wasn't helped much by malpractice insurance. I hate that they are errors are being criminalized and am surprised no one has raised a huge stink about it here. I did see it mentioned and I think there was a thread about it. Just not the level of the crazy surplus threads.
No, I don't think they would. I was just talking about the coverage of respondeat superior, and mentioning that it might not necessarily let the pharmacist off the hook. I personally know pharmacists (that work for chains) who have been sued, and I know of many others. Granted, the company's malpractice coverage kicks in in a lot of these cases, but that's not always the case of a violation in policy was made.
The point is, I don't see the harm in carrying malpractice insurance at rates of, at most, a few hundred dollars per year. Every pharmacist will make a mistake at some point in their career, and we live in a very litigious society.
It is ridiculous, I agree. Unfortunately, that is a precedent-setting case and it leads down a very frightening road. Dispensing an IV in the wrong base solution is not all that uncommon an error to make.
If you know pharmacists that have been sued post some stories. I am curious as to what the error was and how it turned out.
Technically every error is a violation of company policy and procedures.
In the UK we have The Pharmacists Defence Association, A major part of their work is defending individual pharmacists against their employers. The employers are always keen to blame everything on the employee. One notorious case was where the Standard Operating Procedure )SOP) said 'pick the correct product', the pharmacist picked the 'wrong' product. In court the employer was absolved of any responsibility and the pharmacist received a suspended three month jail sentence and a crinimal record.
Have a google on the PDA site for more info.
johnep
Have a google on the PDA site for more info.
johnep
There are two that I'm personally familiar with (I've been working retail for 7 years now).
The first was pretty awful. A tech saw a prescription written for PTU (as the abbreviation) and grabbed Purinethol off the shelf. The prescription was typed up, and the tech never bothered checking the label against the drug that he had pulled. The pharmacist was distracted by an angry customer yelling at the pickup line, and never verified what was in the bottle. The patient ended up in the ICU for a few days, and later sued the company, pharmacist and physician. The patient wasn't after a large amount of damages, and dropped the case against the pharmacist and physician after a written apology...I'm not sure what happened with the company. The pharmacist was still on the hook for a few thousand in legal fees.
The other one that I know of was a prescription for Dilaudid 4mg accidentally dispensed as Dilaudid 8mg. The pharmacist realized the error, called the patient and told him not to take the medication. The guy still took a few, and ended up in the ER. The case was dismissed after this came out; but still, the pharmacist was hit with legal fees.
Neither one of these two situations seem all that unbelievable to me. If the tech had pulled phenazopyridine instead of Purinethol, I doubt the first situation would have happened. Likewise, if it was a dose of Lipitor that was doubled accidentally, nothing would have happened. It's all luck of the draw. That's why I plan on carrying malpractice insurance...I know I will make a mistake at some point. I hope I'm not as unlucky as those two folks, but I'm not taking any chances.
I'll be buying malpractice insurance after a discussion with one of my preceptors. Although I don't plan to get so emotionally gullible, I have to prepare for the unexpected.
When my preceptor was younger, a woman approached him who he had dealt with many times before and was a good customer. She ran out of refills for some controlled med and asked if she could have a few to cover her. He felt sorry for her and gave her a 3 day supply. She would eventually start coming back more often asking for extra supply until eventually she threatened him that she'd turn him in if he didn't give her more. He gave in, but eventually she was arrested for something unrelated. Turns out she was selling the meds. Police found them, she ratted the pharmacist out, the DEA got involved and pressed charges. The retail company he worked for fired him and he would have gone broke from the legal fees had it not been for his private malpractice insurance.
The board of pharmacy revoked his license but allowed possibility for reinstatement. He had to work odd jobs for years (janitor, etc..) until he could request his license be reinstated. Eventually he got it reinstated after showing rehabilitation and is now in a great position in a hospital.
yeah.. nice!
But my reason for getting extra insurance is that you know whatever corporation you're working for will probably be fighting tooth and nail to put the blame squarely on you, so it would be easier not to have to worry about fighting that.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
They will NOT, they will settle these quietly. They are responsible for hiring you and they are responsible for what you do in their name.
Ok! Thanks for clearing that up. I defer to someone with actual retail experience.
I have Pharmacist's Mutual because I do some contract work and it is required. For $12/month it's worth it.
