Named in lawsuit but not directly sued

[amiintrouble]

Hi,
Although I am done with my residency, this issue pertains to my residency and hence am posting here. I received a letter from the law firm that is representing the hospital where I did my residency and it says that although I am not a party, the lawyers would like to speak to me to get details about the case. I went over the accompanying lawsuit document and I am named as the resident on the case. My attending then and other physicans are named as defendents.
So I guess my question is, what does it mean for me? I may be asked to testify, I assume. Do I need to retain a lawyer at this time? I have since graduated and was wondering if something like this can have an impact. FWIW, I have always received good evaluations and otherwise there have been no complaints against me at any point.
Look forward to any advice/ suggestions. Also if anyone has any experiences or know of any cases like this, would appreciate sharing.

Edit: I was reading other threads on the subject and am not sure really what my status is: ie since I am not a defendent, am I "named in the lawsuit?" But my name does appear

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Apollyon]

Do I need to retain a lawyer at this time?

Are you serious? Yes, you do - at least for consultation once. You may get good advice here, but you may also as likely get totally bad, wrong, and uninspired tripe (I can think of one poster that regularly pipes in with just bum opinions).

Also, don't talk more about the case - you've already stated your role.

 

[amiintrouble]

Thanks. I am not looking for legal advice but the ramifications of this. My understanding is, when I was a resident the hospitals legal department had my back. Since the hospital is being sued and the attendings should the same lawyers not "have my back" too? I can definitely set up an appointment with a lawyer but will also have to take into account how this will work since the lawsuit is in a different state.

 

[Droopy Snoopy]

Thanks. I am not looking for legal advice but the ramifications of this. My understanding is, when I was a resident the hospitals legal department had my back. Since the hospital is being sued and the attendings should the same lawyers not "have my back" too? I can definitely set up an appointment with a lawyer but will also have to take into account how this will work since the lawsuit is in a different state.

The hospital pays its attorneys to have its back, not yours. Your mutual interests are generally the same, but don't confuse that with them covering your a**.

 

[dynx]

The hospital pays its attorneys to have its back, not yours. Your mutual interests are generally the same, but don't confuse that with them covering your a**.

This is exactly what needed to be said. The hospital lawyer represents the hospital. Talk to a lawyer to represent you and get all legal advice from them. They may tell you that you have nothing to worry about and in that case it won't cost you much and you'll have piece of mind. They may say you need to get representation and that may cost more but it may save you a ton in the long run. If you're an attending now you have deep pockets and they may decide you're worth naming after they talk to you...I don't know, Im not a lawyer...but I wouldnt wander into a legal conversation without knowning for sure what the hell I was doing.

 

[amiintrouble]

Thanks - will seek counsel.
I am not an attending but still in training and hence, so no deep pockets here.
Any ideas whether I can get in touch with a lawyer who is at my present state of residence or do I need to talk to someone in the state where I did my residency and the lawsuit is since they will have practicing privileges there?

 

[ANCAdoc]

Thanks - will seek counsel.
I am not an attending but still in training and hence, so no deep pockets here.
Any ideas whether I can get in touch with a lawyer who is at my present state of residence or do I need to talk to someone in the state where I did my residency and the lawsuit is since they will have practicing privileges there?

I'd start by calling your old hospital's risk management department. They will want to know you received this paper (though probably already know). I would still discuss the case and your role in the matter with their malpractice attorneys, as this is free counsel.

If you are for whatever reason worried that your interests are not being cared for, then I'd consider outside counsel to review the case. Since you are still in training, this would be financially devastating at this time for you, if you get a reputable attorney. Though, if you can pay up to hundreds of dollars an hour (depending on where you live) for advice, then go for it. But, I think the hospital's counsel could prepare you well for what sounds like a deposition. Everyone will have their own personal opinion of hospital legal counsel.

If you do find your own counsel, then call your state medical board and get a list of reputable, well experienced attorneys. They will provide this for you.

Finally, do not discuss the case with anyone, including a significant other.

 

[physicsnerd42]

Thanks - will seek counsel.
I am not an attending but still in training and hence, so no deep pockets here.
Any ideas whether I can get in touch with a lawyer who is at my present state of residence or do I need to talk to someone in the state where I did my residency and the lawsuit is since they will have practicing privileges there?

I'm still a med student so this may be a naive question but wouldn't your malpractice coverage from residency (as long as it included tail coverage) pay for your lawyer? You may want to check what your coverage from residency can do for you. If your current policy covers for the tail from your residency that might work too.

 

[Winged Scapula]

I'm still a med students so this may be a naive question but wouldn't your malpractice coverage from residency (as long as it included tail coverage) pay for your lawyer? You may want to check what your coverage from residency can do for you. If your current policy covers for the tail from your residency that might work too.

No. Most policies do not provide legal counsel until you have been sued.

Any legal counsel sought outside of a suit and especially that outside of hospital provided counsel will most likely not be paid for.

I would not walk into any "fact finding" mission by the hospital without legal counsel. Treat it like a deposition. If they are named and you are not, they may be interested in shifting blame to you. If you are subsequently named, insist on your own attorney.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Thanks - will seek counsel.
I am not an attending but still in training and hence, so no deep pockets here.
Any ideas whether I can get in touch with a lawyer who is at my present state of residence or do I need to talk to someone in the state where I did my residency and the lawsuit is since they will have practicing privileges there?

Yes, you need someone who has passed the bar in the state in which the suit is filed. You can get local legal advice but in the event you are sued, it is worthwhile to have someone who is familiar with the case, with you and with the local legal environment and laws.

I'd start by calling your old hospital's risk management department. They will want to know you received this paper (though probably already know). I would still discuss the case and your role in the matter with their malpractice attorneys, as this is free counsel.

The OP is required to notify his malpractice carrier when a summons, subpeona, etc, are received. This should have been his first step.

He/she can discuss the case with their attorneys, but as I noted above, he may be billed for this, as he has not been sued. However, it can be the case that hospital attorneys will not bill in this instance; the OP can check to see what his policy covered.

If you do find your own counsel, then call your state medical board and get a list of reputable, well experienced attorneys. They will provide this for you.

Call your malpractice provider and find out who *they* use. In the event you are sued, they will provide you an attorney of *their* choosing. You don't want to start from scratch with someone new. Therefore, if you have someone who is "preapproved" by the malpractice provider, they will often allow you to stay with that attorney should you go to trial.

Finally, do not discuss the case with anyone, including a significant other.

In general, this is considered protected information, much like attorney client privilege. It is expected that you discuss with family/SOs and the OP should actually be encouraged to discuss with his/her SO as these things can be very stressful and the support of a loved one is key. If there is any qualms about doing so, the OP can have any discussions about the case with the SO in the presence of his/her attorney, which then becomes protected information not subject to discovery.

 

[45408]

Finally, do not discuss the case with anyone, including a significant other.

If you're married, you do have spousal privilege.

 

[JackADeli]

If you're married, you do have spousal privilege.

Correct. You can discuss it with your spouse or attorney. There is no privilege in the absence of spousal relationship, i.e. "SO" = BF/GF.

...can have any discussions about the case with [X] in the presence of his/her attorney, which then becomes protected information not subject to discovery...

FYI, any discussion with hospital risk management in the absence of counsel is NOT protected privilege.

 

[amiintrouble]

Thanks everyone for the input. I guess I should wait to call the hospital's lawyers till I get some legal counsel of my own.

What I do not understand about my malpractice insurance is who should I get in touch with in this case. This case is from when I was a resident in State X and hospital A. Now I am in state Y in hospital B doing fellowship.

I was a little surprised to hear initially that I will not be able to discuss the case with my husband but am relieved now that I can.

 

[phallusequinas]

If your attendings were named in the suit, that means the plaintiffs think that the attendings were responsible. It is unlikely that the plaintiff's attorneys would actually try to bring the case to trial, unless they thought they had a solid case.

The plaintiff's attorneys may think that you are only a resident following orders. However, there is nothing to preclude them from naming you as a defendent as the attending's agent.

You really need to think to yourself whether you had any part in this alleged malpractice. If the answer is yes, then you need definitely need your own attorney. There is a high likelihood that you will be deposed.

However, since you are in a different state, likely more than 100 miles from the court's jurisdiction, then you may not be called unless you are named as a party. This decision is up to the plaintiff's attorney. He is weighing the effect of your possible testimony in his case. If you turn out to be a good witness for his case, then you will likely be called. If your testimony is bad for his case, then he will likely not call you as a witness. But the defense might then supoena you. The plaintiff's attorney is not sure. There is a gamble involved that he may not want to take. If he thinks he has a solid case already, he may be unwilling to bring in new variables that could complicate the outcome.

Naming you as party would likely get you respond or you risk being liable in absentia. Or the plaintiff's attorney may still think that you are just a small fish not worth the effort.

If this case actually goes to trial and the attendings lose, then they may try to mitigate their losses by suing you for indemnity. But that would be a very smelly move , which they may not win, if they were giving the orders. It's hard to tell without all the facts.

 

[Apollyon]

Finally, do not discuss the case with anyone, including a significant other.

See, this is the ****ty advice to which I referred (although not the usual poster giving the bad advice).

 

[ANCAdoc]

See, this is the ****ty advice to which I referred (although not the usual poster giving the bad advice).

"Better to resist the urge to speak so that you may truthfully answer, "The only one with whom I have discussed this case is my legal counsel." Discussions with your attorney are privileged, that is, the opposing attorney is denied access to them. (Conversations with your spouse should be privileged too, but the hard truth is that it is best to check with your attorney about the laws and practice governing conversations with spouses before pouring out your heart to your spouse.)" - ARCH PATH/LAB MEDICINE 130(7), 975-8, 2006.

I personally would not discuss the case with anyone except for my insurance carrier and attorney. I would ask my attorney first regarding if I should discuss it with my spouse, and the possible implications it poses. I can imagine it would be very difficult for a spouse to keep certain information secret themselves. Once another party has that information, then it would be hard to argue the information was confidential.

If my attorney says it's OK to discuss the case to my spouse, then I would of course. But, I wouldn't without their express consent.

 

[mig26x]

dude, a legal case can f##$ your life in so many ways even if you are not "significant" part of it that I wouldn't think about it twice before talking to a lawyer that will defend your *****. Medical license paperwork and hospital credentials/ insurance enrollment etc all ask if you have been involved or named in a legal matter or lawsuit.

in other words: GET YOUR OWN LAYWER!!!

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Call your malpractice provider and find out who *they* use. In the event you are sued, they will provide you an attorney of *their* choosing. You don't want to start from scratch with someone new. Therefore, if you have someone who is "preapproved" by the malpractice provider, they will often allow you to stay with that attorney should you go to trial.

Which malpractice carrier should the OP contact? Both? I thought that academic institutions automatically provided residents with free lifelong tail coverage. Since the suit occurred when the OP was a resident, sounds like they should be dealing with the carrier for the residency hospital (which may be self-insured). Although I guess I would notify the current carrier as well.

I would not assume that any lawyer other than the one you retain yourself will be guaranteed to have your best interests at heart.

 

[JackADeli]

Which malpractice carrier should the OP contact? Both? I thought that academic institutions automatically provided residents with free lifelong tail coverage. Since the suit occurred when the OP was a resident, sounds like they should be dealing with the carrier for the residency hospital (which may be self-insured). Although I guess I would notify the current carrier as well.

I would not assume that any lawyer other than the one you retain yourself will be guaranteed to have your best interests at heart.

Extent of coverage and/or tail varies from hospital to hospital. In general, the first call one should make is to the hospital/program risk management. Inform them you received a summons/subpoena and ask them exactly what is their legal services. Depending on those answers, you may then choose to secure your own personal counsel. It is silly and costly to engage a private/personal attorney everytime you are named as a witness from some case in your residency. First, find out what it is about.

 

[amiintrouble]

I am covered by my residency legal services if I am sued - the paperwork with my contract says that they are supposed to give me counsel if I am deposed too and I think if I am asked to testify. Residents are self insured, am not sure about the attendings who are sued. I feel that risk management they will ask me to talk to the lawyers who are respresenting the hospital and attendings since we are "technically" all on the same side.

The thing is I cannot afford to pay a lawyer if I am sued - and the hospital is supposed to provide that. I can talk to a lawyer for initial consultation and even then I do not know how expensive that can be. Any ideas? In hundreds/ thousand?

 

[Smurfette]

I am covered by my residency legal services if I am sued - the paperwork with my contract says that they are supposed to give me counsel if I am deposed too and I think if I am asked to testify. Residents are self insured, am not sure about the attendings who are sued. I feel that risk management they will ask me to talk to the lawyers who are respresenting the hospital and attendings since we are "technically" all on the same side.

The thing is I cannot afford to pay a lawyer if I am sued - and the hospital is supposed to provide that. I can talk to a lawyer for initial consultation and even then I do not know how expensive that can be. Any ideas? In hundreds/ thousand?

Obviously opinions here vary.

I agree with JAD. I would start by talking to risk mgmt at your residency program and find out exactly what is going on and the nature of the case. Remember most malpractice cases are dismissed or settled and of the ones that reach trial, something like 90% are won by the doctor involved. That being said, this may be a ridiculous suit or they may merely want to find out the extent of your involvement with this patient (maybe you cross covered one night, and the plaintiff's lawyer found your name in the chart but your involvement had nothing to do with the reason for the suit). Or maybe they'll want you to give a deposition....hard to say until you find out. But don't get a lawyer to represent yourself before you know the nature of your involvement and what representation you have that is covered under your residency malpractice tail....expenses will add up quickly and this could cost you $$ you otherwise didn't need to spend. Also, your malpractice insurance may have provisions to allow you to retain your own lawyer with lesser or no direct legal fees to you. This is something to ask the hospital's risk mgmt team as they will know (I believe they cannot deny you your own personal attorney if you so request....maybe Law2Doc has some knowledge on this, or maybe it depends on your state?).

The main thing you need to remember is that IF the hospital representatives (which are defending the hospital and those they insure, which includes you, since you said they are self-insured) seem to not be acting in your best interest, THEN you need to get your own lawyer ASAP. Have a low threshhold if things just don't seem right for you.

Anecdotally, residents from my program who were named in suits used our hospital's lawyers and felt very comfortable doing so. They had no out-of-pocket legal expenses (and all were dropped from their suits). The legal team was very good at getting residents dropped from suits and providing support; however this may not be true where you trained---you need to find out more details and ask about how they will be sure to represent your interests.

I don't know how much a malpractice attorney charges. I would guess several hundred an hour at minimum (assuming you find someone who specializes in malpractice), and most require a minimum 2-3 hour retainer to cover phone calls and review of paperwork/lawsuit just to get started.

 

[Apollyon]

"Better to resist the urge to speak so that you may truthfully answer, “The only one with whom I have discussed this case is my legal counsel.” Discussions with your attorney are privileged, that is, the opposing attorney is denied access to them. (Conversations with your spouse should be privileged too, but the hard truth is that it is best to check with your attorney about the laws and practice governing conversations with spouses before pouring out your heart to your spouse.)" - ARCH PATH/LAB MEDICINE 130(7), 975-8, 2006.

I personally would not discuss the case with anyone except for my insurance carrier and attorney. I would ask my attorney first regarding if I should discuss it with my spouse, and the possible implications it poses. I can imagine it would be very difficult for a spouse to keep certain information secret themselves. Once another party has that information, then it would be hard to argue the information was confidential.

If my attorney says it's OK to discuss the case to my spouse, then I would of course. But, I wouldn't without their express consent.

Had you put this up, instead of your glib one-liner, then it wouldn't sound like you were just stating an uninformed opinion.

 

[dpmd]

Hi,
I received a letter from the law firm that is representing the hospital where I did my residency and it says that although I am not a party, the lawyers would like to speak to me to get details about the case.

No one has commented on this. If you are not issued a subpeona why would you even have to talk to them?

 

[JackADeli]

No one has commented on this. If you are not issued a subpeona why would you even have to talk to them?

There can be several reasons, not the least of which being your failure to communicate with "your team" may result in you becoming a party in the suit. The cases have different parts that may vary from attorney to attorney. In general, records are requested early. A resident's name may come up during the preliminary chart review. Based on that the plaintiff will make a filing that names everyone that even walked by the patients room.

The hospital's first goal will be to carve down the number of people named in a suit. Thus, they will do some preliminary interviews and when time comes ask for the majority of people to be dismissed from the case. So, refuse to discuss and you stand a good chance remaining in the case... and possibly [depending on terms of the policy] forfeiting any malpractice coverage.

 

[ANCAdoc]

Had you put this up, instead of your glib one-liner, then it wouldn't sound like you were just stating an uninformed opinion.

Well I actually know quite a bit about this topic, but didn't enjoy it being called bad advice. It ticked me off enough to back it up. It wasn't an uninformed opinion, and you can't go around citing everything.

 

[Apollyon]

Well I actually know quite a bit about this topic, but didn't enjoy it being called bad advice. It ticked me off enough to back it up. It wasn't an uninformed opinion, and you can't go around citing everything.

You've been on SDN almost 5 years, and you say this? Seriously? These people demand you prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Then someone will say, "Oh yeah?? What about 1 + 3, smart guy?"

 

[45408]

You've been on SDN almost 5 years, and you say this? Seriously? These people demand you prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Then someone will say, "Oh yeah?? What about 1 + 3, smart guy?"

Which people? I'd like to see a list.

 

[billsguy]

Absolutely do NOT talk to the lawyer right now, regardless of whether or not you are being named. You do NOT have to and should not speak to them, and it is NOT in your best interest to do so. Speak to risk management first. They will handle it.

 

[amiintrouble]

So risk management said what I expected them to say. Since the lawyers who contacted me are retained by my residency hospital, I should talk to them since they are the ones handling the case for them. In case I am at a later date sued, they will be the law firm representing me. Yes, as some of you suggested, at this point the hospital is not giving me "my" legal counsel since I am not sued but if I am it's the same law firm that will represent me. It appears to me more like a fact finding mission and the only thing I can (and will) say is what I wrote in my notes. The resident handbook says that if I have to go for a deposition, I will be provided counsel. So if things come to that, I will definitely insist on one. I am not sure refusing to talk to lawyers who maybe representing me, if needs be, is the best idea. I am still a little on the fence about consulting an outside lawyer.

So this is how I am looking at things now: The hospitals lawyers may not have my best interest at heart and I understand they are representing the hospital and the sued physicians. So if the plaintiff's lawyer decides to sue me, I will be represented by the same firm. Also if the defense lawyers decide to throw me under the bus to save their clients, and I am sued as a result, the same law firm will then be defending me. So I am thinking of talking to the lawyers and cooperating and at any point if I feel uneasy, I will retain counsel. Does this sound reasonable or naive?

 

[JackADeli]

...So I am thinking of talking to the lawyers and cooperating and at any point if I feel uneasy, I will retain counsel. Does this sound reasonable or naive?

Very reasonable. Keep something in mind. The hospital wants to win the case. If they can not win, they want to minimize the loss. In minimizing the loss, they more often then not want to retain one or more of their current attending staff, especially if "great reputation". The problem comes if the insurability of said physicians is compromised by magnitude of loss or settlement. So, a hospital can conceivably settle by spreading some onto lesser parties. Thus instead of a 20 million loss against physicians a, b, & c; it can be spread as a 12 million loss against physician a, b, & c and 8 million loss against resident 1, 2, & 3.... just to share the love. The hospital still sees the same pay out. However, the insurance premiums of the departed residents don't matter and they can if they want retain the attending staff... possibly paying them less if they want.

 

[Smurfette]

So risk management said what I expected them to say. Since the lawyers who contacted me are retained by my residency hospital, I should talk to them since they are the ones handling the case for them. In case I am at a later date sued, they will be the law firm representing me. Yes, as some of you suggested, at this point the hospital is not giving me "my" legal counsel since I am not sued but if I am it's the same law firm that will represent me. It appears to me more like a fact finding mission and the only thing I can (and will) say is what I wrote in my notes. The resident handbook says that if I have to go for a deposition, I will be provided counsel. So if things come to that, I will definitely insist on one. I am not sure refusing to talk to lawyers who maybe representing me, if needs be, is the best idea. I am still a little on the fence about consulting an outside lawyer.

So this is how I am looking at things now: The hospitals lawyers may not have my best interest at heart and I understand they are representing the hospital and the sued physicians. So if the plaintiff's lawyer decides to sue me, I will be represented by the same firm. Also if the defense lawyers decide to throw me under the bus to save their clients, and I am sued as a result, the same law firm will then be defending me. So I am thinking of talking to the lawyers and cooperating and at any point if I feel uneasy, I will retain counsel. Does this sound reasonable or naive?

👍👍👍

 

[gro2001]

So risk management said what I expected them to say. Since the lawyers who contacted me are retained by my residency hospital, I should talk to them since they are the ones handling the case for them. In case I am at a later date sued, they will be the law firm representing me. Yes, as some of you suggested, at this point the hospital is not giving me "my" legal counsel since I am not sued but if I am it's the same law firm that will represent me. It appears to me more like a fact finding mission and the only thing I can (and will) say is what I wrote in my notes. The resident handbook says that if I have to go for a deposition, I will be provided counsel. So if things come to that, I will definitely insist on one. I am not sure refusing to talk to lawyers who maybe representing me, if needs be, is the best idea. I am still a little on the fence about consulting an outside lawyer.

So this is how I am looking at things now: The hospitals lawyers may not have my best interest at heart and I understand they are representing the hospital and the sued physicians. So if the plaintiff's lawyer decides to sue me, I will be represented by the same firm. Also if the defense lawyers decide to throw me under the bus to save their clients, and I am sued as a result, the same law firm will then be defending me. So I am thinking of talking to the lawyers and cooperating and at any point if I feel uneasy, I will retain counsel. Does this sound reasonable or naive?

I have zero experience with medical malpractice, but it would seem to me that this is a HUGE conflict of interest. Although the same attorney/firm may later be also representing you, and it would seem that you are as much of a client to them as the hospital, it is still the hospital that picks up the bill (and contracts with them for future work). So to the firm, the hospital's interests far outrank yours. I am not saying this is not the usual way things are done, but I can see this as a potential problem, such as in the scenario described by JAD, where the settlement may not be in your best interest.

 

[amiintrouble]

Very reasonable. Keep something in mind. The hospital wants to win the case. If they can not win, they want to minimize the loss. In minimizing the loss, they more often then not want to retain one or more of their current attending staff, especially if "great reputation". The problem comes if the insurability of said physicians is compromised by magnitude of loss or settlement. So, a hospital can conceivably settle by spreading some onto lesser parties. Thus instead of a 20 million loss against physicians a, b, & c; it can be spread as a 12 million loss against physician a, b, & c and 8 million loss against resident 1, 2, & 3.... just to share the love. The hospital still sees the same pay out. However, the insurance premiums of the departed residents don't matter and they can if they want retain the attending staff... possibly paying them less if they want.

Yes, I totally get your point and have thought about this. To be honest, from reading all the records, it will be quite a stretch to actually "put the blame" on me, though lawyers can spin things. But, at this time, I have no choice but to stay positive about it. I do not have the money to hire a lawyer since the only thing I can pay him to do is go through the records since in case I am sued, I will have to depend on the hospital lawyers (for financial reasons). I take comfort in the fact that I was named in the "intent to file" a lawsuit but my name was dropped from the lawsuit, I guess once the plaintiffs got all the documents from the hospital.

 

[amiintrouble]

I have zero experience with medical malpractice, but it would seem to me that this is a HUGE conflict of interest. Although the same attorney/firm may later be also representing you, and it would seem that you are as much of a client to them as the hospital, it is still the hospital that picks up the bill (and contracts with them for future work). So to the firm, the hospital's interests far outrank yours. I am not saying this is not the usual way things are done, but I can see this as a potential problem, such as in the scenario described by JAD, where the settlement may not be in your best interest.

Yes, but what's the alterative? That's how malpractice insurance is set up during residency and as you say, that's the way things are done. Your program provides you malpractice insurance (probably an ACGME rule?). So anytime a residence is sued, the hospital will pick the tab or you hire your own lawyer and pay from your pocket (which I do not know how many residents can afford). Usually a resident is not the only person sued - the hospital and other physicians are too. So, yes, you will most likely have the same lawyers. I would think that if a resident decides to hire his/her own lawyer, the program can make him/her forfeit any malpractice coverage through the hospital and there is more of a chance to deflect the blame to the resident. My case is different as I have not been sued but since my notes are there, the hospital lawyers want to talk to me. According to risk management, they try to get residents out of lawsuits generally and I am hoping that that's the case.

 

[dpmd]

As long as you stick to what is in your notes, what harm can you do to yourself in the event of future lawsuit. What you did/documented is out there already. I was in a similar scenario, but I was still in residency. Risk asked me to provide a deposition because I was a (briefly) treating provider. The care I provided was not an issue in the suit, but I get the feeling the process leading up to it was. The lawyer met with me beforehand and gave me guidance on what kinds of questions I didn't have to answer (like ones asking for an opinion-I'm wasn't there to be an expert witness) and how to behave in general (pause before answering anything to give a chance for objections, wait until the entire question is asked, answer yes or no-not uh huh). They came with me to the deposition (which was scheduled at a time that worked for me). They objected whenever one of those questions that I didn't have to answer came up, and at one point something came up where I wasn't sure how I should answer. I asked to be able to speak with them privately (which I was told I could do beforehand), and in private I got good guidance on whether I should answer as I wanted to.

All in all it wasn't a bad experience. I never felt the lawyer was doing anything but keeping things focused on the facts already in evidence, and limiting the other lawyers attempts at a fishing expedition. I never felt I needed a different lawyer.

 

[amiintrouble]

As long as you stick to what is in your notes, what harm can you do to yourself in the event of future lawsuit. What you did/documented is out there already. I was in a similar scenario, but I was still in residency. Risk asked me to provide a deposition because I was a (briefly) treating provider. The care I provided was not an issue in the suit, but I get the feeling the process leading up to it was. The lawyer met with me beforehand and gave me guidance on what kinds of questions I didn't have to answer (like ones asking for an opinion-I'm wasn't there to be an expert witness) and how to behave in general (pause before answering anything to give a chance for objections, wait until the entire question is asked, answer yes or no-not uh huh). They came with me to the deposition (which was scheduled at a time that worked for me). They objected whenever one of those questions that I didn't have to answer came up, and at one point something came up where I wasn't sure how I should answer. I asked to be able to speak with them privately (which I was told I could do beforehand), and in private I got good guidance on whether I should answer as I wanted to.

All in all it wasn't a bad experience. I never felt the lawyer was doing anything but keeping things focused on the facts already in evidence, and limiting the other lawyers attempts at a fishing expedition. I never felt I needed a different lawyer.

Thanks so much for sharing, this is really useful.
Yes, if they ask me to go to deposition, I will request counsel since that's something that they are supposed to provide to residents/ ex-residents. This may be thinking rather simplistically, but should it not be in the best interest of the hospital to provide me with counsel in case I am deposed? That is, if they don't try to spread the blame, I guess.

 

[JackADeli]

...I take comfort in the fact that I was named in the "intent to file" a lawsuit but my name was dropped from the lawsuit...

The question is, exactly how were you dropped, i.e. "with prejudice"? not an attorney, not sure attachment of with prejudice is possible as you were not actually a defendant, only a consideration....

 

[Docbeme]

Wrong deletion

 

[amiintrouble]

The question is, exactly how were you dropped, i.e. "with prejudice"? not an attorney, not sure attachment of with prejudice is possible as you were not actually a defendant, only a consideration....

Not sure about this but to my understanding of the situation - I do not know if we reached the stage for that determination since I was not a "defendant" but I can ask the university legal department representative. My impression (which may be a simplistic) is that the plaintiff cast a wider net and then narrowed it down. So does the question of prejudice come into play here? I do not know. Also in case I had the "with prejudice" attached to my name, should I not have been informed of it or would there not be some documentation of it?

 

[amiintrouble]

If it were me, the first think I would do is to get a copy of the policy that covered you as a resident and read what it says. That may answer several questions as to your next step.
Did so - was in the resident handbook. Yes, they provide lawyer if a resident is sued - even after the resident has graduated. Also provides counsel for deposition. None of these apply to me yet (keeping my fingers crossed that I will not be sued and hopefully will not have to deposition)


I don't know if you posted this point, but do you still retain knowledge of the patient and his/her treatment? Depending upon your involvement, the only information may be in the notes you took, in which case you really have very little to say.
I was sent all information. I do not plan to say anything beyond what I did vis a vis the care of the patient. I can say why I did what I did. I do not know if they will ask me how the "service" that I was in then, worked, since a lot of it comes down to "being a resident, it was not really my call" but I will refrain from saying anything beyond my notes.


That the hospital's lawyers (or counsel for any party in the case) would want to hear from all parties that were involved is not unreasonable. Both sides are on a fact finding expedition using interrogatories and depositions to build their respective cases.
That is my understanding is from correspondence with hospital's lawyers.

Lastly, I suspect that had you been guilty of some major malpractice item, you would be named in the case. That you haven't suggests a minor role at best. Good luck!

Thanks. That's my understanding of the situation, too.