- Joined
- May 11, 2014
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 1
Was wondering what people's thoughts are on starting a private practice without malpractice or liability insurance. I've never heard of any of my colleagues being sued in close to 100 combined years of private practice. If you consider yourself a responsible dermatologist who is extremely vigilant, careful, and alert with every patient, is there really a need for medical malpractice insurance?
We had a medical malpractice law firm visit our derm practice and tell us the ins and outs of physicians getting sued for malpractice. It is extremely difficult to be sued, and 97% of the calls that medical malpractice law firms receive are just complaints from unhappy customers. The conditions that must me met in order to be sued are as follows:
1) Displaying gross negligence. Doing something that no competent physician in your field would do.
2) The doctor's negligence caused an injury.
3) The injury lead to specific damages, physical, mental, or monetary.
Additionally, the attorney who visited our practice told us that she is able to come after a physician's personal assets even if he/she has malpractice insurance. This attorney said the best way to not get sued is to be a competent physician, and if you make a mistake, take ownership, apologize sincerely, and empathize with your patient. This is usually enough to ward off a complaint to a law firm.
Additionally, I've met with plastic surgeons (a field that is probably a higher risk than dermatology for medical malpractice) who have stopped their medical malpractice insurance and actually saw a decrease in contact from law firms (law firms tend to target physicians with malpractice insurance since they know they can go after an easy settlement).
After all these points considered, it seems to me that medical malpractice insurance is unnecessary if you are a competent dermatologist. The best way to avoid a lawsuit is to be a competent physician and to be nice to your patients.
Knowing this, would anybody go into private practice without medical malpractice insurance? Thanks in advance!
We had a medical malpractice law firm visit our derm practice and tell us the ins and outs of physicians getting sued for malpractice. It is extremely difficult to be sued, and 97% of the calls that medical malpractice law firms receive are just complaints from unhappy customers. The conditions that must me met in order to be sued are as follows:
1) Displaying gross negligence. Doing something that no competent physician in your field would do.
2) The doctor's negligence caused an injury.
3) The injury lead to specific damages, physical, mental, or monetary.
Additionally, the attorney who visited our practice told us that she is able to come after a physician's personal assets even if he/she has malpractice insurance. This attorney said the best way to not get sued is to be a competent physician, and if you make a mistake, take ownership, apologize sincerely, and empathize with your patient. This is usually enough to ward off a complaint to a law firm.
Additionally, I've met with plastic surgeons (a field that is probably a higher risk than dermatology for medical malpractice) who have stopped their medical malpractice insurance and actually saw a decrease in contact from law firms (law firms tend to target physicians with malpractice insurance since they know they can go after an easy settlement).
After all these points considered, it seems to me that medical malpractice insurance is unnecessary if you are a competent dermatologist. The best way to avoid a lawsuit is to be a competent physician and to be nice to your patients.
Knowing this, would anybody go into private practice without medical malpractice insurance? Thanks in advance!