Do I need malpractice insurance coverage in this instance?

[Psychotic]

Residency ends in June, and I am taking at least 3 months off for a break, some travel, and to study for and take the boards in September. During this hiatus, I have no plans to practice medicine.

In that case, do I need to have any malpractice coverage? Is there any need for continuous insurance during periods of non-work, as in this case or any other instance? Will this be an issue when getting credentialed for a subsequent job, or when acquiring malpractice insurance down the road?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[whopper]

When you finish residency all practice you did is covered by the malpractice coverage used by the residency. So if you leave residency you don't need continued malpractice coverage if you're not practicing.

If, however, you did any work that is not covered by residency, e.g. you did moonlighting, and if someone decides to sue you during this time off where you don't have malpractice--yes you might not be covered. This depends. The place you moonlit-did it cover your insurance? If so you might not (EMPHASIS-MIGHT NOT) need it. Did you purchase malpractice to cover you while you moonlit? Did it have tail coverage (meaning that after your insurance period cover ends they still cover you for the practice done during that time?)

Why MIGHT NOT? Cause some places backstab you and if you are sued despite that on your contract they say they'd cover you, pull a total RICHARD maneuver and let you hang high and dry. YES I HAVE SEEN THIS HAPPEN TO COLLEAGUES. It's why some people still get malpractice anyway even if they work for an institution that agrees to cover their malpractice.

A buddy of mine was sued and had to pay for legal counsel despite working for an institution that on paper promised to cover his legal costs. They backstabbed him and refused to pay knowing the only way he could get his contract enforced would be then to sue them and they had vast legal resources that could play a war of attrition while he couldn't. He had to get a lawyer and pay a tremendous amount of money out of pocket for his first lawsuit and decided not to suit his employer at the same time to get them to cover the costs of the first lawsuit.

 

[Psychotic]

When you finish residency all practice you did is covered by the malpractice coverage used by the residency. So if you leave residency you don't need continued malpractice coverage if you're not practicing.

If, however, you did any work that is not covered by residency, e.g. you did moonlighting, and if someone decides to sue you during this time off where you don't have malpractice--yes you might not be covered. This depends. The place you moonlit-did it cover your insurance? If so you might not (EMPHASIS-MIGHT NOT) need it. Did you purchase malpractice to cover you while you moonlit? Did it have tail coverage (meaning that after your insurance period cover ends they still cover you for the practice done during that time?)

Why MIGHT NOT? Cause some places backstab you and if you are sued despite that on your contract they say they'd cover you, pull a total RICHARD maneuver and let you hang high and dry. YES I HAVE SEEN THIS HAPPEN TO COLLEAGUES. It's why some people still get malpractice anyway even if they work for an institution that agrees to cover their malpractice.

A buddy of mine was sued and had to pay for legal counsel despite working for an institution that on paper promised to cover his legal costs. They backstabbed him and refused to pay knowing the only way he could get his contract enforced would be then to sue them and they had vast legal resources that could play a war of attrition while he couldn't. He had to get a lawyer and pay a tremendous amount of money out of pocket for his first lawsuit and decided not to suit his employer at the same time to get them to cover the costs of the first lawsuit.

Thanks for the info. I should have clarified I have done NO moonlighting during residency, thus had no other malpractice coverages outside of residency, so that should not be a consideration for me, right?

So again, it sounds like I am protected for the work I did during residency, which i always assumed. I guess I am just concerned that during the work hiatus I plan, do I need any kind of malpractice insurance even though I will not be practicing medicine during that period. Logic suggests I should not need malpractice insurance unless I am actually working, but I am just wondering if there is some sort of stupid expectation that I have continuous coverage even though it appears I don't really need it for liability purposes. You say as much in your reply, and I feel better, but I am just a little paranoid about all of this, looking for reassurance. New territory for this guy...also don't want to spend precious $ unnecessarily.

 

[Psychotic]

Any other comments? Is the consensus that in the situation I described, I do not need to carry malpractice insurance during the work hiatus?

Thanks.

 

[Vandalia]

An important question: did you do your residency at a state institution (e.g., University of Michigan)? If so, "sovereign immunity" applies and there is nothing else you need to worry about. If it was a large private institution (e.g., Cleveland Clinic) then there may technically be a concern as to whether they provide "tail coverage", but with so many trainees it is highly unlikely that it is not covered. Now if you did a residency at a for-profit hospital with an unopposed psychiatry residency (is there such a thing?) with only 4 residency graduates a year, then it may be worth getting explicit written documentation that "tail coverage" is provided.

However, there is also the practical reality: If you are sued for something you did in the course of your training, the plaintiff is not going to try and get money out of a recently graduated resident; they are going to go after the "deep pockets" of the institution. This is why it is highly unlikely that an institution would try to play games with tail coverage for a residency graduate; they know that if there is a malpractice suit they will be paying out in any case.

If:
(1) You did not do any moonlighting or treat any patients outside of residency, (and)
(2) You do not plan to work during these three months,
then you should not need malpractice coverage during this time period.

However, make certain that you do not let anyone get the impression that you have established a physician-patient relationship. In most fields of medicine, that is done easily enough. In your field, it has the potential to be a little more complicated.

 

[Psychotic]

An important question: did you do your residency at a state institution (e.g., University of Michigan)? If so, "sovereign immunity" applies and there is nothing else you need to worry about. If it was a large private institution (e.g., Cleveland Clinic) then there may technically be a concern as to whether they provide "tail coverage", but with so many trainees it is highly unlikely that it is not covered. Now if you did a residency at a for-profit hospital with an unopposed psychiatry residency (is there such a thing?) with only 4 residency graduates a year, then it may be worth getting explicit written documentation that "tail coverage" is provided.

However, there is also the practical reality: If you are sued for something you did in the course of your training, the plaintiff is not going to try and get money out of a recently graduated resident; they are going to go after the "deep pockets" of the institution. This is why it is highly unlikely that an institution would try to play games with tail coverage for a residency graduate; they know that if there is a malpractice suit they will be paying out in any case.

If:
(1) You did not do any moonlighting or treat any patients outside of residency, (and)
(2) You do not plan to work during these three months,
then you should not need malpractice coverage during this time period.

However, make certain that you do not let anyone get the impression that you have established a physician-patient relationship. In most fields of medicine, that is done easily enough. In your field, it has the potential to be a little more complicated.

I am at a large, state university based residency program.

Also correct that I never did any moonlighting, not even within my residency system, and certainly nothing outside of it, and I do not plan to do any work during the 3+ months I am taking off.

Thanks for the advice. I think i will inquire about the tail coverage issue, just for peace of mind. But I feel like all my bases are covered.