Malpractice

[Smitty]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know there have been similar posts about this, but has anyone heard anything more recently about pathology and malpractice? (How it stands compared to other specialties)? Not that this is a reason to choose or not choose a caeer; I'm just curious. Also, what about forensics? I assume they have some sort of professional liability coverage, but for the life of me I can't figure out why 😀

 

[governaitor]

I have heard it is not so bad but have no idea what exactly that precisely means

 

[b&ierstiefel]

It's all relative. Just thank god it ain't anesthesiology or OB/GYN.

 

[EvilTaz]

I've heard that pathologists definitely do not get sued as often as the heavy hit specialties like OBGYN. However, when settlements are lost, they are for more money than the average malpractice settlement.

I have no idea how this translates into insurance premiums, although here in Pennsylvania everyone pays a lot.

 

[garfield]

Pathologists do get sued; the most frequent would be the surg path/cytopath cases. Classically, there has been some time lapse since the original report; patient comes back with riproaring, fully manifest badness and retrospectively, there might have been a hint of it in the original biopsy/cytology that seems obvious only when you look back at it. I've heard that hindsight really brings on the 20/20 vision. Seems the forensics pathologists are the least often sued... they're often in court as a part of their job but at least their butt is not on the cooker.

 

[yaah]

Pathologists are "easier" for some people to sue, simply because they have no personal relationship. And it is very easy for a lawyer to get ahold of the idea that because, for example, a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer after undergoing a previous biopsy, that the cancer "should have been caught." Frankly, I think the possibilities for something like Pap smears/cervical cancer are frightening.

But generally, from what I have heard, judgments are not nearly to the extreme level as the neurosurgery and OB verdicts. Most are likely settled out of court. Most common lawsuits, from what people have told me, involve Melanomas/atypical nevi, and lymphoma diagnoses (although I am not sure why that is for the latter, because there seems to me a lot of checks and balances in the diagnosis of a hematologic malignancy).

 

[RyMcQ]

Estimated malpractice for the job I'm starting in July in Utah:

3000 for the first year and increasing to a plateau of 15000 by the fourth year.

I can't speak to what rates are in other states.

 

[Doctor B.]

Estimated malpractice for the job I'm starting in July in Utah:

3000 for the first year and increasing to a plateau of 15000 by the fourth year.

I can't speak to what rates are in other states.

I'm not sure of the prices in other states either but in Indiana, as in some other states I think, there is some sort of committee that reviews the malpractice claims and determines which ones are utter BS and which aren't (the BS ones don't get to continue). I think there's also a limit on how much you can sue for. Consequently, malpractice prices are lower than some other states.

 

[Smitty]

Thanks for the replies. I'm kinda confused by the whole lymphoma thing too. Anybody know if forensics guys pay anything at all?