Do any of you retail pharmacist have malpractice insurance? Am I required to tell my employer that I have malpractice insurance if I decide to get one?
Malpractice insurance
- Thread starter RealRX
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,723
- Reaction score
- 3,502
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,413
- Reaction score
- 4,050
It's dirt cheap because they rarely pay out... Because plaintiffs will go after your employer ($$$) under respondeat superior.
As an aside, punitive damages are capped at $250,000 in California (MICRA) for malpractice, that dissuades a lot of plaintiffs from going to trial because malpractice suits can cost up to $100k in discovery, obtaining expert witnesses, etc... most plaintiffs will settle.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,413
- Reaction score
- 4,050
Malpractice insurance may cover legal costs associated with defending your license against a state board's disciplinary proceedings, so if you want to prepay attorneys fees that way, be my guest.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,413
- Reaction score
- 4,050
From termination? No, it may cover costs associated with being a defendant at some really low limit (like $25k or something aggregate).
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,413
- Reaction score
- 4,050
Lol.... I looked at quotes on HPSO.
California has a terminal punitive damage cap of $250,000 and a strict percentage maximum allowable attorneys fees which discourages lawsuits. There also exists evidence code 1157 which prevents peer review and medication error discussions from being discoverable.
Kansas, Montana, and Nevada have a punitive damage cap of $250k-$350k but I don't think they have a max allowable attorneys fees statute on the books.
Florida had its cap invalidated by its supreme court.
California = $112/yr
Nevada, Montana, Idaho = $147/yr
Florida = $277/yr
That should give you an indication of the acturarial risk analysis that determined these prices.
California has a terminal punitive damage cap of $250,000 and a strict percentage maximum allowable attorneys fees which discourages lawsuits. There also exists evidence code 1157 which prevents peer review and medication error discussions from being discoverable.
Kansas, Montana, and Nevada have a punitive damage cap of $250k-$350k but I don't think they have a max allowable attorneys fees statute on the books.
Florida had its cap invalidated by its supreme court.
California = $112/yr
Nevada, Montana, Idaho = $147/yr
Florida = $277/yr
That should give you an indication of the acturarial risk analysis that determined these prices.
I really like the way you analyze things for me but I feel like you are too smart for me because I'm not sure if you answered my question or not. Which is do I need to get the insurance?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,413
- Reaction score
- 4,050
That's an incredibly individualized answer depending on your tolerance for risk, assets, state tort reform/liability caps, evidence laws, and practice setting/liability risk.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2002
- Messages
- 4,429
- Reaction score
- 4,809
http://www.govexec.com/magazine/2000/02/do-you-need-liability-insurance/5952/
Even though I work for the government and even malpractice is specifically covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act (I cannot be personally targeted with a lawsuit under official circumstances), I've always carried malpractice/malfeasance insurance for the bureaucratic hell that you can be put through for no reason whatsoever if you manage to really get a Plum Book appointee on your case (even better if you manage to piss off SEIU). This also says something about my politics, but depending on the administration, how well the Department of Justice handles defending the government and the civil service is very dependent on who is the current Attorney General and the district appointees ("US Attorney") at the Federal District level. If you do specific functions (consult for the DEA or FDA), I'd say from personal experience that you ought to as drug cartels and PhRMA have pretty deep pockets for barratry.
http://www.va.gov/OHRM/WorklifeBenefits/PLI.asp
The number of malpractice lawsuits against one, settlements, and judgments are also a state labor law issue. On the malpractice insurance disclosure, it depends on your employment contract. I actually know some locum companies that REQUIRE that their contractors carry at least the Pharmacists' Mutual level of coverage for malpractice which they will verify. I cannot think of any chain pharmacy that does. If you are a union pharmacist in MN, your malpractice gets reimbursed by your employer up to a specific cap due to the current labor contractor. My work does verify that I have malpractice/umbrella PLI coverage as it's reimbursable by the civil service under EO 10988. To summarize, an employer can make PLI a condition of employment and can make disclosure a requirement if the employee is requesting reimbursement. In other situations, it's up to the state's labor law on how.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 4,260
- Reaction score
- 3,520
I have always carried malpractice insurance and strongly believe in it. Bare in mind, if you are depending on your employer's malpractice insurance, you have to trust that you won't be thrown to the wolves in order to protect your employer. Ie, while your individual malpractice insurance will be solely protecting you and your interests, your employer's malpractice insurance has to protect both your employer and you, and very well might deem it in their best interests to paint you as a lone wolf who did not follow company policy.
As with all insurance, house, car, etc., the ideal is that one pays into the insurance for years and never actually has to claim on that insurance. The likelihood of actually claiming an insurance is not what should be looked at, rather the magnitude of potential loss by not having the insurance.
As with all insurance, house, car, etc., the ideal is that one pays into the insurance for years and never actually has to claim on that insurance. The likelihood of actually claiming an insurance is not what should be looked at, rather the magnitude of potential loss by not having the insurance.
