CVS in the news for med error

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Better move to Texas, 250k limit malpractice wow so cheap!
 
Momus said:
Better move to Texas, 250k limit malpractice wow so cheap!
Click to expand...

Same with California... there's a ballot measure this fall to lift it, but it'll come down to money and I'm thinking insurance companies will outspend trial lawyers in the end.
 
By the way. There is no way that one drop of ear drops in the eye will cause blindness. The drops are sterile. The only difference is in tonicity which is why the drops burn. This is a common error that occurs all of the time. That along with Metformin and Metformin ER mixups. Whenever you check for Cortisporin you need to double check to make sure it's for the ears or eyes.....
 
Old Timer said:
By the way. There is no way that one drop of ear drops in the eye will cause blindness. The drops are sterile. The only difference is in tonicity which is why the drops burn. This is a common error that occurs all of the time. That along with Metformin and Metformin ER mixups. Whenever you check for Cortisporin you need to double check to make sure it's for the ears or eyes.....
Click to expand...
I agree
 
I wish he or someone would have read the vial first.
 
Momus said:
Better move to Texas, 250k limit malpractice wow so cheap!
Click to expand...

The $250k cap is the result of the 2003 texas tort reform, due to spiking law suits, insurance premiums and shortage of doctors.

The cap applies to the non-economic (bodily harm and sufferng) damages. It does not include economic ones such as medical bills, lost wage and future earnings, etc.
 
Last edited:
If you watch the video in the article, that guy does not move or look like his life was changed by 1 drop of ear solution in his eye. He clearly has longstanding medical/mobility problems and this family/lawyer is looking for a quick payout to help with that.
 
Old Timer said:
By the way. There is no way that one drop of ear drops in the eye will cause blindness. The drops are sterile. The only difference is in tonicity which is why the drops burn. This is a common error that occurs all of the time. That along with Metformin and Metformin ER mixups. Whenever you check for Cortisporin you need to double check to make sure it's for the ears or eyes.....
Click to expand...

Pardon my ignorance as I'm only a first-year, but is that really the only difference? If I were to guess, I'd bet that there is a preservative in the otic formulation that isn't present in the ophthalmic formulation.
 
y0ssarian87 said:
Pardon my ignorance as I'm only a first-year, but is that really the only difference? If I were to guess, I'd bet that there is a preservative in the otic formulation that isn't present in the ophthalmic formulation.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Both eye drops and ear drops are sterile preparations. Unless they are single does items like Restasis, they all contain preservatives. The reason eye drops are so difficult to make is the tonicity. If it does not match the eye environment, it will clearly cause eye irritation and it it were off enough, maybe damage, but one drop to cause total blindness, I'm not buying that.

Also not buying the idea, CVS ignored them. They would have paid off to avoid the lawsuit.
 
If you put an ear drop into the eye, it'll just hurt. It can't cause blindness. The difference has to do with making sure the drop won't hurt as much in the eye. You can use eye drops in the ear. I've seen that a couple of times when the physician wanted to use a drop which didn't come in an ear formulation.
 
similar thing happened at our store two weeks ago. a floater filled ofloxacin eye drops instead of ear drops. the lady was furious. too furious to try to make money n file a lawsuit. so she took it from our cvs store to another cvs store to get it filled. = )
 
I don't think the drop could directly make you go blind. I'm going to guess it burned, and that he rubbed the hell out of his eye as a result. He probably scratched his cornea or something to that effect.

In order for it to scan, it must've been entered as the otic drop, so there would be auxiliary labels on it saying "for the ear only" and the leaflets would have also said that. So warnings were present, but they were ignored, wonder how that will affect the case. You can't sue over hot coffee anymore, because the cup says "caution: hot" on the outside, whether or not you obey the warning.
 
Go tell the State board of pharmacy that and see what they say at the above poster.
 
Ackj said:
I don't think the drop could directly make you go blind. I'm going to guess it burned, and that he rubbed the hell out of his eye as a result. He probably scratched his cornea or something to that effect.

In order for it to scan, it must've been entered as the otic drop, so there would be auxiliary labels on it saying "for the ear only" and the leaflets would have also said that. So warnings were present, but they were ignored, wonder how that will affect the case. You can't sue over hot coffee anymore, because the cup says "caution: hot" on the outside, whether or not you obey the warning.
Click to expand...

If it's the patient's job to make sure he got the right product, why are they paying you?
 
You can't waive liability for a process that isn't inherently dangerous. Pharmacies are supposed to be run by competent pharmacists who dispense according to their legal authority and obligation. We live in a day and age where negligence is followed by liability. If you are negligent, you are liable for damages.
 
Yes, but the amount of negligence can be divided. It's not unheard of for the professional to get say 75% of the negligence blame, and the patient to get, say 25%, because the patient wasn't completely in the dark.*If* this guy was completely competent and functioning, then yes, a jury would be liable to divide the negligence (because he clearly had warnings that he should have questioned), and while the greater portion would go to the professional, the payout amount would be lowered. However, if the guy wasn't completely functioning (diminished mental abilities due to age, partial blind so he has trouble reading, etc....then its more likely for the complete blame to go to the professional.) Lawsuits can go in unexpected ways, due to the makeup of the jury.
 
sosoo said:
a floater filled ofloxacin eye drops instead of ear drops.
Click to expand...

you can instill eye drops in the ear, there's some eye drop whose OTIC counterpart is expensive, so we use eye for ear (and PO for secretions in palliative pt's).
 
I have seen several ENTs use eyes products for ears (one of favorite is the Tobradex) and I've done atropine drops SL for hospice patients on a daily basis. I was taught on rotation that from the eye you can go up and down ONE-WAY only (meaning eye products can be used for Ears and Mouth but not the other way around). There was a period in the past that I remember a TV show (Can't remember the name) showing people trying to commit murder by using Visine-A as oral product; and then I remember on Bones the "doctors" said that Tetrahydrozoline in Visine-A OTC caused increased blood pressure that was concluded to be one of the causes of death of the victim LOL--and the week after that I got multiple questions if that was true from people walking in who saw the episode....
 
First, it is an excepted practice to use eye drops in the ear. We have all been doing it for many years. This would be considered "standard of practice" and you really can't be held liable for practicing within the standard (wouldn't hold up as negligence).

However, the other way around has never been acceptable. This was an error that was missed at verification. Those auxiliary labels will not protect you from liability. I think you would find that most juries would not assign much liability to the patient in this case. If the pharmacist had counseled the patient (for the eye) then one might expect the patient to trust the information the pharmacist has given them. If he didn't counsel, he likely did not fulfill a requirement of law.

The moment we expect patients to catch our errors is the day we have lost the seriousness of our charge as pharmacists. Errors do happen, but they are never acceptable.

This is also why you should carry your own liability insurance.
 
KidPharmD said:
F

This is also why you should carry your own liability insurance.
Click to expand...

You know the ONLY thing your policy will do is give you your own lawyer. It will only pay if your employers insurance is exhausted. That would be impossible wth any major US corporation.
 
I heard that sometimes the employer will fire you for policy violation and their insurance will not cover you due to not following policy but if you have your own policy then it can still protect you. For example if this cvs was bypassing the product accuracy scan, printing off the entire production queue and pre scanning the bottles, etc. then this would be a violation of cvs policy and they would not cover you. Thankfully never have been in this situation before so I don't know for certain but considering liability insurance was less than $100 (for a first year rph) I'm not losing sleep over the waste of money.
 
maria1oh said:
I heard that sometimes the employer will fire you for policy violation and their insurance will not cover you due to not following policy but if you have your own policy then it can still protect you. For example if this cvs was bypassing the product accuracy scan, printing off the entire production queue and pre scanning the bottles, etc. then this would be a violation of cvs policy and they would not cover you. Thankfully never have been in this situation before so I don't know for certain but considering liability insurance was less than $100 (for a first year rph) I'm not losing sleep over the waste of money.
Click to expand...

Really think hard. This is about the dumbest post I have seen in a long time. Please don't tell me you don't understand why.
 
My policy will cover my professional liability even if my company's determines that I do not qualify for their coverage (e.g. the company throw me under the bus for "violating policy"). It is a specifically named benefit of my insurance. It also covers me if a suit names me without naming the company (as I understand it, my company only HAS to cover me if the company is also named).

Old Timer- Can you enlighten us on your thoughts on the previous "stupid post" please?
 
KidPharmD said:
My policy will cover my professional liability even if my company's determines that I do not qualify for their coverage (e.g. the company throw me under the bus for "violating policy"). It is a specifically named benefit of my insurance. It also covers me if a suit names me without naming the company (as I understand it, my company only HAS to cover me if the company is also named).

Old Timer- Can you enlighten us on your thoughts on the previous "stupid post" please?
Click to expand...

From a plaintiff's perspective, it makes no sense to sue only the pharmacist and not the company. The company is a giant pot of $$$$, and that's where the plaintiff went. Pharmacist and company are one and the same.

The pharmacist could have taken a bat to the plaintiff's knees in the vitamin aisle and they would still sue the company as a matter of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

From the company perspective, it makes no sense to throw your own employee under the bus since you are likely co-defendants and if the pharmacist is found at-fault, the company will as well.

The only time this would be an issue is if the pharmacist went way far out of the scope of employment. That would mean clocking in, going to your car, driving to someone's house, and taking a baseball bat to someone's face.

OldTimer probably has a better/simpler explanation.
 
confettiflyer said:
From a plaintiff's perspective, it makes no sense to sue only the pharmacist and not the company. The company is a giant pot of $$$$, and that's where the plaintiff went. Pharmacist and company are one and the same.

The pharmacist could have taken a bat to the plaintiff's knees in the vitamin aisle and they would still sue the company as a matter of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

From the company perspective, it makes no sense to throw your own employee under the bus since you are likely co-defendants and if the pharmacist is found at-fault, the company will as well.

The only time this would be an issue is if the pharmacist went way far out of the scope of employment. That would mean clocking in, going to your car, driving to someone's house, and taking a baseball bat to someone's face.

OldTimer probably has a better/simpler explanation.
Click to expand...


No you covered all of the relevant points:

If all they had to say was employee X violated the rules, we are not responsible, they would never pay a claim. The plaintiff's atto
confettiflyer said:
From a plaintiff's perspective, it makes no sense to sue only the pharmacist and not the company. The company is a giant pot of $$$$, and that's where the plaintiff went. Pharmacist and company are one and the same.

The pharmacist could have taken a bat to the plaintiff's knees in the vitamin aisle and they would still sue the company as a matter of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

From the company perspective, it makes no sense to throw your own employee under the bus since you are likely co-defendants and if the pharmacist is found at-fault, the company will as well.

The only time this would be an issue is if the pharmacist went way far out of the scope of employment. That would mean clocking in, going to your car, driving to someone's house, and taking a baseball bat to someone's face.

OldTimer probably has a better/simpler explanation.
Click to expand...

No you covered all of the relevant points:

If all they had to say was employee X violated the rules, we are not responsible, they would never pay a claim. The plaintiff's attorney will ever never go for that and neither will any judge. When you go to CVS, or any other corporation, the employees are agents of said corporation. It's the responsibility of any corporation to police their employees and make sure they have systems in place to weed out the miscreants.

By the way, if you commit gross negligence, your policy does not cover that either.
 
I still think ins is cheap enough that it is a good value. It will cover in instances where say your neighbor asks you a pharmacy related question, you tell her something, and then she decides to sue you over it. You weren't at work when you answered her question, so she can't sue your workplace. Granted these instances are rare, but the ins is cheap enough in my opinion, to justify having that coverage.
 
BidingMyTime said:
I still think ins is cheap enough that it is a good value. It will cover in instances where say your neighbor asks you a pharmacy related question, you tell her something, and then she decides to sue you over it. You weren't at work when you answered her question, so she can't sue your workplace. Granted these instances are rare, but the ins is cheap enough in my opinion, to justify having that coverage.
Click to expand...

It's cheap for a reason.
 
Anyone recommend buying long term disability insurance? My school forced us to buy it and the company gave us a presentation on why to keep it post school. It was like 30 a month. They said we would secure a 30% discount. I'm skeptical.
 
trailerpark said:
Anyone recommend buying long term disability insurance? My school forced us to buy it and the company gave us a presentation on why to keep it post school. It was like 30 a month. They said we would secure a 30% discount. I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, disability ins is a necessity if you have a family depending on your income....if you are single, then its a nice thing to have, but not really a necessity. Most employers offer it, so you may not need your own plan after you start working.
 
trailerpark said:
Anyone recommend buying long term disability insurance? My school forced us to buy it and the company gave us a presentation on why to keep it post school. It was like 30 a month. They said we would secure a 30% discount. I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

Anyone with any obligations, family, mortgage, student loans, kids needs to have log term disability insurance. Unless the premium is out of this world, buy it yourself. If your employer pays you get taxed. If you pay, it's tax free. It only gives about 60% of your income. If you make 120K you get72K-taxes around 57K.
 
The only thing I have is 150k in student loans. I should keep it?
 
trailerpark said:
Anyone recommend buying long term disability insurance? My school forced us to buy it and the company gave us a presentation on why to keep it post school. It was like 30 a month. They said we would secure a 30% discount. I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

SCHOOL forced you to buy? Based on what income calculation? What the hell??

I wonder how much that school gigot kicked back from this broker.

Out of this world, wow.

S
 
That seems very odd, simply call the carrier that the policy was issued by and ask them if you have to keep it, if not then drop it if that is what you choose to do. Should be pretty easy. Let us know if we can be of service.
 
While we were in school we had to keep it, it was on our bill.
 
trailerpark said:
While we were in school we had to keep it, it was on our bill.
Click to expand...

What school was this? What a racket. I can understand health insurance, but DI? What "income" did the insurance company rate your coverage at?

If the coverage was portable, this giant moral hazard exists such that an unemployed new grad had an incentive to claim mental illness and/or do self-harm to obtain DI benefits. Even in school, moral hazard exists such that you'd get paid more while disabled vs. being a no income student.

I don't even wanna know how much you got charged, cuz then we'll have an idea how much the school pocketed.
 
LECOM loves money! LOL I just checked my student bills. It was about 410 a year for 3 years. It was based on a salary of 20k. That was the only thing in lecom's bill I never wanted to pay. All the prices for everything else seemed really reasonable except now that I graduated, in those 3 years their tuition has gone up to 25k currently! Once you add insurance and all the other fees it's more like 30k total a year not even counting housing and food a million other things that cost money. I went there because it was the cheapest, but I still left with 140k student loans. How do people manage to go to 4 year schools with higher tuition than lecom, I don't get it! Thank god I got a job, but relocation is going to cost me like 2k, ARGGG. It honestly makes me feel sick so I've been watching a lot of personal finance stuff on youtube and reading the stuff you guys write on here.

There needs to be more personal finance on this site. It helps a lot!
 
what if the way the doctor wrote the script made eye look like an ear, and patient refused to be counseled?

I remember when I first started, I had 3 techs talking to me at the sametime, super busy, patient standing at the counter waitting, had to change this eye drop 5 different times, almost dispensed the wrong thing, finally calmed myself and thought it through lol
 
Deja said:
what if the way the doctor wrote the script made eye look like an ear, and patient refused to be counseled?

I remember when I first started, I had 3 techs talking to me at the sametime, super busy, patient standing at the counter waitting, had to change this eye drop 5 different times, almost dispensed the wrong thing, finally calmed myself and thought it through lol
Click to expand...

It would still be in error. You can't put ear drops in the eyes so it doesn't matter what it looks like on the script, you would know better. Even if the doctor had written ear drops for the eye you would still have to call the office to clarify.
 
owlegrad said:
It would still be in error. You can't put ear drops in the eyes so it doesn't matter what it looks like on the script, you would know better. Even if the doctor had written ear drops for the eye you would still have to call the office to clarify.
Click to expand...
Some drops only come as ophthalmic or otic, but not in this case. If it was written Cortisporin e...(scribble) drops, 1 gtt qid or something of that nature, no mention of os/as, I can appreciate the room for error. Or even a badly written o that looked like an a.

That wasn't really the case here, from what the story shows, but I can definitely see an error occurring in the way Deja states.
 
trailerpark said:
While we were in school we had to keep it, it was on our bill.
Click to expand...

ME_523_Speechless.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Multiple suicides among CVS employees in Pennsylvania
Replies
9
Views
1K
bluc
B
Mr.Smile12
[Drug Store News] Trends in pharmacy 2024
Replies
0
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
owlegrad
CVS sucks now
Replies
6
Views
4K
clarkbar
C
A
What’s the Best Model for the Future of Pharmacy if CVS and Walgreens are Struggling?
Replies
12
Views
4K
clarkbar
C
D
Cvs rx connect question
Replies
1
Views
2K
Old Timer
Old Timer
Top