Legal Resource to help with malpractice defense? (Military)

[molarballer]

I have been recently notified that I have been identified from a military malpractice claim from an active duty member.

I don't have malpractice insurance myself because the military covers claims made against me. Previously, active duty military cant make malpractice claims against AD provider, but now they can with a new legislation.

Because of this, I believe this means that I need to find my own lawyer to help represent me. In particular, to help me get my statement straight; this will likely get reported to a licenisng board so I will need legal consult there too. I understand I do need my own layer, however I am not familiar with how to find one. Can someone please send me in the right direction?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

The military attorneys will defend you (well, they defend the claim vs the government which is almost the same thing). Generally, they do so very aggressively and competently. Talk to your hospital risk management.

Someone in your specialty will almost certainly do a case review and make some kind of determination of whether you met the standard of care. I've done a few of these over the years. These are to help advise the attorneys with the defense. Ultimately if this internal review finds you to be at fault, you may be reported to the national database, and/or a period of observation/supervision may ensue. Usually this is not the case.

 

[molarballer]

The military attorneys will defend you (well, they defend the claim vs the government which is almost the same thing). Generally, they do so very aggressively and competently. Talk to your hospital risk management.

Someone in your specialty will almost certainly do a case review and make some kind of determination of whether you met the standard of care. I've done a few of these over the years. These are to help advise the attorneys with the defense. Ultimately if this internal review finds you to be at fault, you may be reported to the national database, and/or a period of observation/supervision may ensue. Usually this is not the case.

Thank you for the reassurance that the military attorneys will defend me.

On the flip side, however, I believe I would still need a personal attorney to help me deal my licensing board.

I believe this is a claim that will end up having me at fault. A preliminary review has already been conducted, but no action has been taken against me because I was a resident. Now that a formal claim has been made, I am not as optomistic and at the very least I will be reported to the national database. I believe base legal can help me to an extent in drafting statements to my licensing board, but I am hoping to get in touch with a malpractice defense lawyer who is more familar on the subject.

 

[Gastrapathy]

A lawsuit is not an action against your medical license. All of these events move very slowly and until you've been notified by the medical board that you need to respond to a board complaint, there is nothing to do on that front. Just let the process play out for now.

 

[HighPriest]

Easier said than done when you’re nervous, but Gastrapathy is right. Wait for them to notify you. When you look for legal representation, you’ll be able to find someone to take your money.

 

[backrow]

Go chat with your risk management folks.

My understanding of the change is that it’s not the AD member can sue you, but rather that the AD member can now actually bring suit against the government. Your name still gets removed from the lawsuit and replaced by “US Government” but prior to this most recent change active duty members didn’t have this option. Ultimately you could have always had claims made by dependents and similarly your name is removed and the Government becomes the defendant. Same thing now applies to active duty members.

At least that’s how it was explained to me by our local folks.

 

[IlDestriero]

I wouldn’t worry about state boards unless that particular state board requires you to notify them that you’re being sued. I imagine it does not, because people can sue anyone for anything, regardless of merit and they don’t want to be following up on all those dropped or dismissed cases.
I believe the state I’m licensed in requires near immediate notification of a judgement against you though.

 

[d2305]

If you were a resident, the action is against your attending.

 

[Vandalia]

On the flip side, however, I believe I would still need a personal attorney to help me deal my licensing board.

Why?

Absolutely no one cares if you have been sued for malpractice. Not licensing boards, not future employers. No one.

A malpractice case is a dispute between lawyers that does not involve you in any way. Well it does; but not in any way that matters.

Everyone knows that there is no correlation between an allegation - or even proof - of malpractice and the quality of the physician. Unless you murdered a patient, or refused to show up because you were inebriated on call, or sexually harassed/molested someone NO ONE CARES.

Having done a lot of hiring and some medical board work, the only time - apart from the above - where malpractice suits are of concern or are investigated is when they are several standard deviations above the mean. Yes, if as a family med physician you are averaging ten suits a year then that would be an issue. If you are a neuroradiologist who gets fifteen suits in three years all alleging failure to distinguish ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes on CT then they will likely require you to get additional training and/or limit your license.

But otherwise, let me repeat it again: NO ONE CARES!

What are they teaching in residencies these days??

 

[d2305]

BTW don't waste your money on a lawyer. Make an appt with JAG as they're free.

 

[DrMetal]

But otherwise, let me repeat it again: NO ONE CARES!

Wouldn't you care, in the sense that a suit specifically naming you ends up in the NPDB? (It does, right?) Then you have to explain yourself every time you try to get credentialed somewhere. I agree it's not the end of the world, and I agree there's not much you can do about it, but still . . . .

BTW don't waste your money on a lawyer. Make an appt with JAG as they're free.

Maybe a good place to start, to get a referral out in town. I doubt most JAG officers are that nuanced in medical malpractice law . . .maybe some.

 

[GreenHousePub]

Wouldn't you care, in the sense that a suit specifically naming you ends up in the NPDB? (It does, right?) Then you have to explain yourself every time you try to get credentialed somewhere. I agree it's not the end of the world, and I agree there's not much you can do about it, but still . . . .



Maybe a good place to start, to get a referral out in town. I doubt most JAG officers are that nuanced in medical malpractice law . . .maybe some.

None of these suits involve getting your name added to the NPDB unless:

1) The committee (typically those in your specialty) decide that your behavior was extremely outside of the standard of care. They put together their recommendations and forward it on up.
2) The attorney general's office agrees and adds the person to the NPDB.

Even if step 1 is met, there is often a huge disconnect between step 2.

 

[d2305]

Wouldn't you care, in the sense that a suit specifically naming you ends up in the NPDB? (It does, right?) Then you have to explain yourself every time you try to get credentialed somewhere. I agree it's not the end of the world, and I agree there's not much you can do about it, but still . . . .



Maybe a good place to start, to get a referral out in town. I doubt most JAG officers are that nuanced in medical malpractice law . . .maybe some.

It's not like they're overworked. I learned a bit going to OIS (ODS) with them.

 

[Vandalia]

Wouldn't you care, in the sense that a suit specifically naming you ends up in the NPDB? (It does, right?) Then you have to explain yourself every time you try to get credentialed somewhere. I agree it's not the end of the world, and I agree there's not much you can do about it, but still . . . .

I did credentialing and hiring for nearly twenty years. I don't ever recall asking about a malpractice suit; except perhaps out of humor. If the rest of the package looks good, then the presence of and/or the normal amount of suits for that specialty are irrelevant. On the other hand, if the package looks terrible (Caribbean medical schools, attended three different residencies in one specialty, horrible references) then I don't both to look at the history of suits because the application is dead anyway.

Yean, you may have to check a box or scratch out a few lines to explain how ridiculous it was, but believe me, no one really pays any attention to that.

 

[TheEarDoc]

Most internal reviews are protected and results not shared outside the facility. They are supposed to be non-punitive. They merely are fact finding and learning processes to see if a standard of care was met or not and if not what could have been done better next time.

 

[DrMetal]

I did credentialing and hiring for nearly twenty years. I don't ever recall asking about a malpractice suit; except perhaps out of humor. If the rest of the package looks good, then the presence of and/or the normal amount of suits for that specialty are irrelevant. On the other hand, if the package looks terrible (Caribbean medical schools, attended three different residencies in one specialty, horrible references) then I don't both to look at the history of suits because the application is dead anyway.

Yean, you may have to check a box or scratch out a few lines to explain how ridiculous it was, but believe me, no one really pays any attention to that.

Well, that makes me feel better about medicine.

What a façade of profession we're in.

This guy could be your doctor:

 

[TheEarDoc]

And now we see this:

Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Unanimously Passes Manchin Bipartisan Bill To Increase VA Provider Accountability | U.S. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia

The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia

www.manchin.senate.gov

 

[GreenHousePub]

And now we see this:

Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Unanimously Passes Manchin Bipartisan Bill To Increase VA Provider Accountability | U.S. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia

The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia

www.manchin.senate.gov

For the last part of the bill:
"whose behavior and clinical practice so substantially failed to meet generally accepted standards of clinical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the safety of patients."

That statement seems like it would leave a lot of room for interpretation in a settlement ie; not an isolated case but a pattern of behavior. What are your thoughts on it?

 

[Alby]

If you were a resident, the action is against your attending.

Not always.

 

[pgg]

For the last part of the bill:
"whose behavior and clinical practice so substantially failed to meet generally accepted standards of clinical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the safety of patients."

That statement seems like it would leave a lot of room for interpretation in a settlement ie; not an isolated case but a pattern of behavior. What are your thoughts on it?

I'm not sure what you mean.

If you quote the entire sentence:

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs to update policies and practices for employees of medical centers of the Department, Veterans Integrated Service Networks, and the Veterans Health Administration to report to State licensing boards, the National Practitioner Data Bank established pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11101 et seq.), and any other relevant entity health care professionals who are employed by or separated from employment with the Department and whose behavior and clinical practice so substantially failed to meet generally accepted standards of clinical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the safety of patients.

It just says that the VA shall write a report for the Congress to tell the Senators and Represenatives what policies are being updated so that licensing boards and the NPDB hear about really terrible doctors, if they exist. I don't see what this has to do at all about any particular court case. Or somehow proving a "pattern of behavior" (by whom? the doctor being sued? the government?) that could be used (how?) by some plaintiff's attorney.

 

[TheEarDoc]

I'm not sure what you mean.

If you quote the entire sentence:



It just says that the VA shall write a report for the Congress to tell the Senators and Represenatives what policies are being updated so that licensing boards and the NPDB hear about really terrible doctors, if they exist. I don't see what this has to do at all about any particular court case. Or somehow proving a "pattern of behavior" (by whom? the doctor being sued? the government?) that could be used (how?) by some plaintiff's attorney.

Right now if something goes before the peer review board in a VA those records are sealed and they don’t leave the facility. Supposed to be an educational opportunity and process improvement opportunity. The VA is now in this “just culture” kick lately. They say that but then when you read articles and bills like this one it doesn’t sound that way to me. It sounds like you do something and it gives the VA bad press they are going to report it to congress release it to the public via FOIA and torpedo providers to save face. Doesn’t sound like a just culture to me. Sounds like the typical scapegoat culture as usual. The way it’s worded sounds more like some people who don’t like a certain provider can now just start shotgunning a provider with peer review after peer review to establish a “pattern” and then boot them out and damage their career in the process. I’ve seen this happen already in my time in the VA. Lots of blue falcons and ladder climbers in the VA unfortunately.

 

[comp1]

It's so hard to recruit...the VA or really pretty much anywhere is not going to be rushing to get rid of people...

 

[molarballer]

Update: Got notified that I will be likely reported to the NPDB.

I still have no idea what I should do with my state board. Risk management just gave me a lot of "reassurance" that things will be fine. Obviously things aren't fine if I am being reported to NPDB. I don't even know if I can have my own personal attorney in all this because it's all internal review.

 

[Vandalia]

Update: Got notified that I will be likely reported to the NPDB.

I still have no idea what I should do with my state board. Risk management just gave me a lot of "reassurance" that things will be fine. Obviously things aren't fine if I am being reported to NPDB. I don't even know if I can have my own personal attorney in all this because it's all internal review.

No one will ever care about this.

 

[DrMetal]

Update: Got notified that I will be likely reported to the NPDB.

I still have no idea what I should do with my state board. Risk management just gave me a lot of "reassurance" that things will be fine. Obviously things aren't fine if I am being reported to NPDB. I don't even know if I can have my own personal attorney in all this because it's all internal review.

I'm just curious (if you wanna divulge), what happened? By your user SDN, I'd assume you're a dental type, or OMFS? Do you agree with the complaint, were you really at fault, or were you just named b/c you were on the chart somewhere?

 

[HighPriest]

I'd assume you're a dental type, or OMFS?

Gonna be weird if he isn't

 

[DrMetal]

Gonna be weird if he isn't

You never know. Maybe hes a physician who wishes he had gone to dental school, , which is definitely my case!

 

[HighPriest]

You never know. Maybe hes a physician who wishes he had gone to dental school, , which is definitely my case!

Pff, that's everyone who knows what dentists make.