How to not be sued as a doctor?

[YouDontKnowJack]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Anyone familiar with the law?

As I've read, doctors get sued when they are grossly negligent.... or when some bitch patient just wants to make a buck.

But how about when a doc follows the correct protocol, and **** happens? Would a doctor win the suit in this case since the result is unexpected? Say, I have a checklist, and I go down the checklist without neglecting a single item.... how would they prove that I was negligent?
With an increasing number of lawsuits, it seems doctors have to tape record or even video tape all of their encounters with patients, or is that illegal too?

They say that the best way to avoid a lawsuit is to spend more time communicating with the patient. Does this mean that if you establish a rapport with your patient, he is less likely to sue you if **** happens? I would think that if he is bent on trying to make a quick buck, he'll sue you anyway...and the attorney will be more than happy to help.

To keep everyone's hands off of our Bentleys and mansions, it seems that the only strategy we will have is asset protection. But even then, you're still at the mercy of some lawyer.
And this begs another question. If you have bulletproof asset protection, why even have malpractice insurance? If you're spending $150000 on insurance, you might as well give it to the attorneys for asset protection eh?

 

[DrBowtie]

I most scared about a sexual assault suit by some patient thinking I enjoyed a breast or pelvic exam a little too much. Impossible to prove so it becomes a credibility war. Then all it takes is another claim like that and there is doubt on your cred.

 

[GiantGiantsFan]

I most scared about a sexual assault suit by some patient thinking I enjoyed a breast or pelvic exam a little too much. Impossible to prove so it becomes a credibility war. Then all it takes is another claim like that and there is doubt on your cred.

LOL!

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

I most scared about a sexual assault suit by some patient thinking I enjoyed a breast or pelvic exam a little too much. Impossible to prove so it becomes a credibility war. Then all it takes is another claim like that and there is doubt on your cred.

😱 yeah. try not to smile when feeling for lumps.

 

[DrBowtie]

Like I am being deadly serious. There are no witnesses like scrub techs or nurses like in the OR. It is just you and the patient. They can accuse you of whatever they want. The first time you will most likely get off but if she tells her friends to say the same thing you are screwed. I think I might hire a nurse to be my wing woman and have my back.

 

[GiantGiantsFan]

Like I am being deadly serious. There are no witnesses like scrub techs or nurses like in the OR. It is just you and the patient. They can accuse you of whatever they want. The first time you will most likely get off but if she tells her friends to say the same thing you are screwed. I think I might hire a nurse to be my wing woman and have my back.

Their testimony will look dubious if both witnesses know each other.

 

[DrBowtie]

True, but you can never be too safe.

 

[bbas]

Anyone familiar with the law?

As I've read, doctors get sued when they are grossly negligent.... or when some bitch patient just wants to make a buck.

But how about when a doc follows the correct protocol, and **** happens? Would a doctor win the suit in this case since the result is unexpected? Say, I have a checklist, and I go down the checklist without neglecting a single item.... how would they prove that I was negligent?
With an increasing number of lawsuits, it seems doctors have to tape record or even video tape all of their encounters with patients, or is that illegal too?

They say that the best way to avoid a lawsuit is to spend more time communicating with the patient. Does this mean that if you establish a rapport with your patient, he is less likely to sue you if **** happens? I would think that if he is bent on trying to make a quick buck, he'll sue you anyway...and the attorney will be more than happy to help.

To keep everyone's hands off of our Bentleys and mansions, it seems that the only strategy we will have is asset protection. But even then, you're still at the mercy of some lawyer.
And this begs another question. If you have bulletproof asset protection, why even have malpractice insurance? If you're spending $150000 on insurance, you might as well give it to the attorneys for asset protection eh?

I tend to agree that if you build a good rapport with your patient, you would be less likely to be sued. This wouldn't always work, because as you pointed out there will always be people looking to make a quick buck, but I do think that a doctor that spends time with the patient and has good beside manner would be less likely to be sued than a doctor who is cold and impersonal.

 

[beanbean]

Female chaperones (nurses, techs, med students) are used when sensitive exams such as breast and pelvic exams are done.

There have been studies which show that honesty and admitting of mistakes lessens your chances of having a suit filed against you.

 

[Bap2qwrq7]

There's a book by a guy named Malcom Gladwell called Blink that talks about which doctors are more likely to be sued. From what I remember the study he discussed basically said that the doctors that on average spent a few more minutes with their patients will be less likely to be sued regardless of how "good" of doctors they are.

He relayed some anecdotal stories of how one patient wanted to sue the radiologist that made a reading, even though the lawyer informed her it wasn't that doctors fault but the fault of her internist, but because she liked the internist so much she refused to go after him.

Kind of interesting stuff.

 

[Dire Straits]

you can practice by the book and put on the nice guy act for your patients and still get sued. they can always find something they think you did wrong and hang their hat on it. doesn't mean they'll win, but you'll still be dragged through the process and that can sometimes be worse than the outcome itself. but it usually doesn't get that far anyway as the doctor's attorney usually decides to settle by throwing some money at the plantiff so they'll go away and not risk losing even more money/reputation if the case goes ahead and it is found in favor of the patient.

 

[Emergency!]

There has been at least one published study done recently that stated that patients are less likely to sue if they like their doctor, even if the doctor admits making a mistake.

Also, every GYN exam I have had by a male dr. in the past few years has had a female nurse present during the exam.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Anyone familiar with the law?

As I've read, doctors get sued when they are grossly negligent.... or when some bitch patient just wants to make a buck.

But how about when a doc follows the correct protocol, and **** happens? Would a doctor win the suit in this case since the result is unexpected? Say, I have a checklist, and I go down the checklist without neglecting a single item.... how would they prove that I was negligent?
With an increasing number of lawsuits, it seems doctors have to tape record or even video tape all of their encounters with patients, or is that illegal too?

They say that the best way to avoid a lawsuit is to spend more time communicating with the patient. Does this mean that if you establish a rapport with your patient, he is less likely to sue you if **** happens? I would think that if he is bent on trying to make a quick buck, he'll sue you anyway...and the attorney will be more than happy to help.

To keep everyone's hands off of our Bentleys and mansions, it seems that the only strategy we will have is asset protection. But even then, you're still at the mercy of some lawyer.
And this begs another question. If you have bulletproof asset protection, why even have malpractice insurance? If you're spending $150000 on insurance, you might as well give it to the attorneys for asset protection eh?

Your insurance company handles the case. Most likely they'll settle for a small amount and you'll never have to set foot in a courtroom. I haven't heard of a case when a doctor actually stood trial in a courtroom. I'm sure they have, but its fairly uncommon. Insurance handles everything, that's what you pay them for.

 

[VincentAdultman]

You WILL get sued. It's a way of life for doctors.

I've heard stories of doctors being found to be completely clear of any wrongdoing....but the jury sides with the plantiff...because they "felt sorry for their suffering."

WTF?

Anyone familiar with the law?

As I've read, doctors get sued when they are grossly negligent.... or when some bitch patient just wants to make a buck.

But how about when a doc follows the correct protocol, and **** happens? Would a doctor win the suit in this case since the result is unexpected? Say, I have a checklist, and I go down the checklist without neglecting a single item.... how would they prove that I was negligent?
With an increasing number of lawsuits, it seems doctors have to tape record or even video tape all of their encounters with patients, or is that illegal too?

They say that the best way to avoid a lawsuit is to spend more time communicating with the patient. Does this mean that if you establish a rapport with your patient, he is less likely to sue you if **** happens? I would think that if he is bent on trying to make a quick buck, he'll sue you anyway...and the attorney will be more than happy to help.

To keep everyone's hands off of our Bentleys and mansions, it seems that the only strategy we will have is asset protection. But even then, you're still at the mercy of some lawyer.
And this begs another question. If you have bulletproof asset protection, why even have malpractice insurance? If you're spending $150000 on insurance, you might as well give it to the attorneys for asset protection eh?

 

[jclarke]

aren't as evil as you make them out to be . . . at least not the good ones --

i've worked as a paralegal for about 4 years now, on and off, and we've rejected a LOT of b.s. medical "malpractice" that the general public think is a case. lawyers aren't about to spend a lot of money, time and energy in pursuing stupid cases. It's pretty expensive to start a lawsuit (at least here in NY) that lawyers would go out of business if they retained crappy cases.
And a lawyer can't just decide, oh we're going to sue the doctor; they still need to obtain another's doctor's take on the case and whether or not it was malpractice.

And, frankly, we do have a few med mal cases, and I'm glad the docs are being sued because they really WERE negligent. I obviously can't post here specifics, but things like causing a tear during an operation and then trying to HIDE it by modifying the medical records - you guys don't think this kind of doc deserves to be sued? Would you want him/her to be up and about operating on your mom or friend?

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

And, frankly, we do have a few med mal cases, and I'm glad the docs are being sued because they really WERE negligent. I obviously can't post here specifics, but things like causing a tear during an operation and then trying to HIDE it by modifying the medical records - you guys don't think this kind of doc deserves to be sued? Would you want him/her to be up and about operating on your mom or friend?

Then again, there are many hungry lawyers who are willing to take on frivolous suits, esp the ones whose salaries are a mere $50000 per year .

Of course, hiding medical data deserves a lawsuit.

But I think that docs who always follow the proper protocol should not even need malpractice insurance. From the limited knowledge I have from reading a few articles, insurance companies usually give out settlements of about $30000. It's probably a magic number that keeps the idiot moneygrubbin patient happy. But why should docs pay $150000 to insurance companies for the sole purpose of granting $30000 settlements? I can use that $150000 and pay out the settlements myself. I read that many doctors are doing without mal insurance.

If Asset protection is the way to go, and is indeed lawsuit-proof, then I'd say screw malpractice insurance. If they can't touch my house, my cars, and my swiss bank account, then my response to the patient would be "go f*ck yourself".

 

[njbmd]

Hi there,
The only way not to be sued in medicine is not to practice in the first place. Anyone who practices medicine is a potential target for lawsuit. Everytime you encouter a patient, you bring your experience with you. On most days, that is enough but always remember that you can and will be hauled into court. Do you best and always keep the best interests of the patient in mind. You will make mistakes so be prepared for these too.
njbmd 🙂

 

[chameleonknight]

Where are you getting the number of 150,000 for malpractice insurance? I don't think it's anywhere near that high for most specialities.

 

[Law2Doc]

Then again, there are many hungry lawyers who are willing to take on frivolous suits, esp the ones whose salaries are a mere $50000 per year

Not really -- there are very steep sanctions (including monetary penalties) for lawyers who bring frivolous cases. However whether a case is "frivolous" is a matter determined by the judge, not the medical community (which may be problematic). In general, if the lawyer can find an MD as an expert witness who will support the plaintiff's claim that the generally expected standards of care were not met, then the case will not be thrown out as frivolous. So your real gripe in terms of frivolity should be toward these physician "experts" who come forward. A push to "circle the wagons" by physicians may be necessary if you truly want to curb such lawsuits.
But to answer your original question (speaking as a lawyer, but not one who ever did any medmal and certainly not one who sides with anti-physician sentiment), yes at some point in your medical career, you are likely to be sued. It is very possible that it will not be your fault -- you may be assisting someone who is negligent, or even just in the same room when something goes bad. The way lawsuits tend to work is that when a viable claim of negligence is made, you list in the suit everyone potentially involved -- which can be everyone in the OR at the time, the admitting ER physicians, the radiologist who read the films, the path guys who handled the lab work, etc. -- and drop them out of the suit later, as they demonstrate non-involvement or it becomes more clear who the culprit is. It is done this way because it is significantly harder to add new people into a lawsuit once it is started than it is to put everyone in initially and let them drop out as the case progresses. (I didn't design the system - I agree it s*cks). So yes, you are likely to be named in a lawsuit at some point in your career. As a prior poster indicated, you are less likely to end up in court -- a vast majority of all lawsuits are dismissed or settled prior to a trial (better than 90%). But you may be deposed, and will certainly need to talk to your hospital's or insurer's legal staff.
Sure, there are certainly studies which indicate that a good rapport with patients reduces the chance of lawsuit. But bear in mind that in more drastic situations, it is the patient's family, not the patient who will be bringing the lawsuit, so the rapport won't help you there. And also bear in mind that people come into the hospital expecting you to "fix" or "cure" them, and when you don't (or in some case when they come out worse than before), patients sometime feel wronged by you, and get pissed, and then get a lawyer to help them. (Contrary to popular ("ambulance chasing") belief, seedy lawyer advertisements notwithstanding, most patients find themselves lawyers, not the other way round). And again, you have to worry not just about your own rapport with patients, but also that of anyone you are assisting, or reading the films for, etc. So rapport helps, but the likelihood is still that at some point in your career you will be sued.
Hope this clears things up and answers your question. Again, I have not ever done medmal, and am not a fan or proponent of the system - just trying to answer your question.

 

[Law2Doc]

If Asset protection is the way to go, and is indeed lawsuit-proof, then I'd say screw malpractice insurance. If they can't touch my house, my cars, and my swiss bank account, then my response to the patient would be "go f*ck yourself".

FYI - Asset protection is helpful, and can often dissuade a smaller claim, but is hardly ever bullet-proof. If you keep your assets in a spouse's name (or in some "family partnership" or family trust), the asset protection from outside claimants is imperfect, and you are also now at bigger risk of losing everything in divorce. If you hide it overseas, judges in extreme cases have been known to hold litigants in contempt (i.e. jail) until you bring it back. Owning things through a foreign trust or corporation is doable at great legal and accountant cost (and many annual tax and customs form filings), but such chain of ownership can often be pierced (or your initial transfer of such assets can be deemed a "fraudulent conveyance" and undone) and if the assets are in the country they can be seized and used to pay a judgement. The only really safe asset protection strategy I am aware of is the homestead acts of a number of states (FL, TX etc.), which provide protection against lawsuit for your home if you happen to live in the right state (the reason OJ isn't living out on the street), but these sometimes have dollar limits and big exceptions (& again including being at risk in divorce). Bottom line is you can spend a ton of money trying to protect your assets and not necessarilly get much real world protection.

 

[nockamura]

Several specialties require insurance premiums in excess of $100k/year. This is highly dependent upon the area in which you practice, however. Miami has the highest rates in the country right now with internists paying ~$65k, general surgeons paying ~$230k and ob/gyns paying ~$250k. The lowest premiums are paid in the midwestern states with these specialties paying $3k, $10k and $15k respectively. For more information see: http://www.memag.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=108537

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

Law2doc..... nice to have your input here.

Several specialties require insurance premiums in excess of $100k/year. This is highly dependent upon the area in which you practice, however. Miami has the highest rates in the country right now with internists paying ~$65k, general surgeons paying ~$230k and ob/gyns paying ~$250k. The lowest premiums are paid in the midwestern states with these specialties paying $3k, $10k and $15k respectively. For more information see: http://www.memag.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=108537

$250000 for ob/gyn is disgusting. And there really is no assurance that these ob/gyns will gross $500000. His take home pay could very well be $30000 per year. haha 😱 I read that many florida docs are practicing without insurance.

 

[DieselPetrolGrl]

I most scared about a sexual assault suit by some patient thinking I enjoyed a breast or pelvic exam a little too much. Impossible to prove so it becomes a credibility war. Then all it takes is another claim like that and there is doubt on your cred.

omg i know
i was avoiding reading this thread but what will i do???
i am naturally a smiling person - i am one of those people that smile when i sleep and grin like monkey at strangers. people always think i am upto something or doing a crest ad. its gone as far as to people asking "WHAT????!!!" so i am worried everyone will think i like touching their nasty ole lumps and humps. ew. i haveto practice my "medical frown of disgust"

thank a lot BrettBatchelor - your red bow tie may be the mark of seriousness but I, kind sir, dont have one.