Indemnification Clause

[profstudent]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm currently in contract negotiations with a psychiatric facility for some moonlighting duties. They included an indemnification clause and have refused to remove it, as my attorney and I requested.

Is it commonplace for these clauses to be included in psych contracts these days? Am I being unreasonable to expect that they remove it?

 

[FlowRate]

I'm not out on the psych job market, but I'd never sign a contract like that. Sounds unusual.

 

[TexasPhysician]

I've declined jobs over this. These clauses only benefit the corporation and could severely damage a physician's economic future.

 

[northernpsy]

This is psych - you can afford to be a little picky here. I would walk away from a job that insisted on keeping this kind of clause.

 

[Psychotic]

This site explains it: http://www.ahcmedia.com/articles/30...r-indemnification-added-liability-is-at-stake

 

[profstudent]

Thank you for the replies thus far. I agree that they don't make sense for physicians. I just wasn't sure if they are becoming standard in contracts for psychiatric services.

 

[PistolPete]

This site explains it: http://www.ahcmedia.com/articles/30...r-indemnification-added-liability-is-at-stake

Thanks for this, and to the OP. Great timing as I start negotiations on a job offer.

 

[sweetlenovo88]

How exactly does the clause read?

 

[Extralong]

Just a rec: I would strongly consider getting an attorney to review your contract. I agree with the forum advice above, but an attorny would be best.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Thank you for the replies thus far. I agree that they don't make sense for physicians. I just wasn't sure if they are becoming standard in contracts for psychiatric services.

They are "standard" in that most large corporations attempt to have everyone agree to every policy in their best interest.

This does not mean that many psychiatrists agree to sign this, but some will due to a lack of knowledge on what they are signing.

 

[Jules A]

They are "standard" in that most large corporations attempt to have everyone agree to every policy in their best interest.

This does not mean that many psychiatrists agree to sign this, but some will due to a lack of knowledge on what they are signing.

True and this goes on my automatic strike through list along with the non-compete clause.

 

[sweetlenovo88]

So you guys won't sign any indemnification clauses and ask for them to be completely removed? Even ones where it states each party is liable for themselves? Meaning if the organization or one of its other employees is sued, I'm not liable.

 

[profstudent]

So you guys won't sign any indemnification clauses and ask for them to be completely removed? Even ones where it states each party is liable for themselves? Meaning if the organization or one of its other employees is sued, I'm not liable.

I'm curious about this too as I believe I read somewhere (of course I can't find it now) that even if the indemnification is mutual, it still remains inequitable for the physician.

 

[FlowRate]

I'm curious about this too as I believe I read somewhere (of course I can't find it now) that even if the indemnification is mutual, it still remains inequitable for the physician.

If I had to guess, it's because the physician is small $$ in comparison to the corporation. You want the employer to be able to be named in a lawsuit, because then the plaintiff will be more easily satisfied with the corporate settlement.

 

[TexasPhysician]

I'm curious about this too as I believe I read somewhere (of course I can't find it now) that even if the indemnification is mutual, it still remains inequitable for the physician.

Exactly. Think about it this way: The corporation is worth millions of dollars, and we generally aren't worth 5% of the corporation. Thus, the corporation is more likely to be hit for a much larger settlement, and the corporation will pin it on the physician if possible. We indemnify $$$$$$$ and the corporation indemnifies $. Our risk would be an unfair proportion. It is no where close to equal.

Also some patients develop good rapport with a physician and will sue the corporation while leaving the physician out of it. Few patients develop a rapport with a business entity.

What I have done under direction of an attorney is reword the indemnification clause to be limited to whatever my malpractice company will cover them for under my policy. For all I know, my policy doesn't provide that service, so they may get nothing. I am no attorney, so consult your own before doing this.

 

[zolof]

Any of you doing contract work successfully removed any noncompete clauses?

 

[TexasPhysician]

Any of you doing contract work successfully removed any noncompete clauses?

Yes. All the time or I walk.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

Huh, I was just reviewing a contract for a friend that had a GOOD indemnification clause. I was confused until I realized you were talking abot the bad kind