Do you carry your own liability insurance??? Well, you should.

Does this change as you get closer to retirement and have a higher net worth? I know people who work constantly and have been pulling down 100k+/year. Should those people be more worried since they have more to lose?
 
Gurby said:
Does this change as you get closer to retirement and have a higher net worth? I know people who work constantly and have been pulling down 100k+/year. Should those people be more worried since they have more to lose?
Click to expand...
absolutely

The more your net and the more you make the more insurance you should carry in general.

If you are 60 year old MD/PA/CRNA/NP and have 3Mil net between real property, retirement accounts, etc yea you should max out your auto insurance and homeowner liability coverage and have a supplimental umbrella policy and good mal practice coverage.

If you are 23 with a net worth of -20K because of school and auto loans and you make 35K per year as a paramedic, you probably don't need malpractice coverage.

If you are somewhere inbetween, use your judgement or get some professional advice. I am not a financial adviser.

I don't think most EMS providers need coverage.
 
Like I said....still waiting on the actual cases where a paramedic has been sued and had to pay damages.
 
Here is the deal....aside from my request twice of show me a case study challenge.

You have been compelled into feeling like you need the insurance by stories not based in fact from our litigious society. Feelings are worthless when contemplating a business transaction. Use facts and data.

So...on the HPSO site, there is a link to view actual cases and claims. Do you know what it shows under BOTH EMT and Paramedic?
NO RESULTS FOUND. That simple. HPSO has no historical cases to reference or use as an example for the EMT or Paramedic. I laughed because they now have student liability insurance. WTF? I mean if your program and the organization hosting you cannot cover you, you need to rethink your plan of action.

They are a business. They will imply, they will scare and do what is necessary to sell. At the end of the day, while they have actual claims involving other professions, they do not have any for EMS workers. How many years now have they been hawking their goods in back of JEMS magazine (for us old timers)?

Between your employer, your vehicle insurance policies, and Special Event Insurance and Good Samaritan Act (if off duty) you are damn near immune to paying out ever. You might be named, but payout has yet to be proven to me.

Sure the cost is low which is why they keep it there. They know your wages are low AND they know your actual risk is VERY low. They will never pay out for our field so this is all icing on the cake. Now multiply all the10s of thousands who say "its so cheap, why not"...and it is a gold mine for them! Well done to their business model. Fear Sells! Always!

From a business perspective, they are solid and the majority of us are the typical uninformed consumer too lazy to research and just reach for whats on the low shelf for a feel good sensation.

One final comment....imagine if NONE of us ever bought the plan. What do you think would happen?
 
Akflightmedic, I know of such a case on a very detailed level. I'm talking about a medic who actually had the same kind of liability insurance we're debating here, but it turned out to be short, so he lost a lot anyway. You can PM me if you want more information.

I understand your concern about insurance companies using fear tactics to stimulate sales. Maybe HPSO engages in some of that -- I don't know.

No one knows what legal precedents will be set in the future and how they will affect us as individuals. It makes my brain hurt to agonize over paying $200 a year in an inherently risky profession, even if the only thing I ever get out of it is peace of mind.
 
I rather not know of what seems to be a close/private situation. I want actual publicized cases, and HPSO should proudly be advertising them (redacted of course). If you have a valuable product, show me something tangible, support the claim with evidence. Saying it is because you say it is, is too similar to another system I have strong disdain for. :)

And in the guy's case you know, it seems it did not help anyways. You may say well it reduced the cost some...but once in the hole for X thousand...whats another few thousand, right? For most paycheck to paycheck workers, either scenario is disaster.
 
Fine, here's the link to my 7/12 Life Support column for EMS World. I didn't want to make a big deal about it:

http://www.emsworld.com/article/10711901/ambulance-crash-outcome

If you're saying this article shows we shouldn't carry any liability insurance because it wasn't enough this time...well, I'm just not getting that. Let me also point out that the $200 annual premium I quoted is on the high side because it includes an extra amount I pay for teaching, writing and consulting. Yes, you could question whether I'm really capable of doing any damage in those areas :-)

This has gotten way more detailed than I intended, but I can understand your preference for facts.
 
For most of us, whatever agency we work or volunteer for should be the "deep pockets" for purposes of lawsuits. For personal encounters, we should be covered by our state's "Good Samaritan" law. If you're teaching, consulting, etc for money then this seems like a case for insurance. It's just like any other business you could be involved in - regular EMS rules don't really apply.
 
mgr22 said:
Fine, here's the link to my 7/12 Life Support column for EMS World. I didn't want to make a big deal about it:

http://www.emsworld.com/article/10711901/ambulance-crash-outcome

If you're saying this article shows we shouldn't carry any liability insurance because it wasn't enough this time...well, I'm just not getting that. Let me also point out that the $200 annual premium I quoted is on the high side because it includes an extra amount I pay for teaching, writing and consulting. Yes, you could question whether I'm really capable of doing any damage in those areas :)

This has gotten way more detailed than I intended, but I can understand your preference for facts.
Click to expand...
First didn't realize that HSPO would cover traffic accidents.

Second IANAL...

The details you presented are nonsensical. He could have appealed on many grounds, order of proceedings, new evidence, etc. Yet he lost his house instead of doing so? Further, he was covered at the time of the incident by his employer, so their refusal to protect him because they later fired him because of his on-duty injuries would be ridiculed by the judge. Then there is the claim that they terminated him for injuries sustained in the line of duty.... wait what? He was a worker's comp case so they couldn't possibly do that until he was at the point of MMR + FMLA expiration.

Basically, the story does not add up at all or your acquaintance took zero effort to right any of the grievous wrongs against him.
 
Summit said:
First IANAL.

The details you presented are nonsensical. He could have appealed on many grounds, order of proceedings, new evidence, etc. Further, he was covered at the time of the incident by his employer, so their refusal to cover him because they fired him because of his on duty injuries would be ridiculed by the judge. Then there is the claim that they terminated him for injuries sustained in the line of duty.... wait what? They couldn't possibly do that until he was at the point of MMR + FMLA expiration.

Basically, the story does not add up at all or your acquaintance took zero effort to right any of the grievous wrongs against him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty crazy, right? Guess he really messed all that stuff up. Good thing none of the rest of us should have to worry about such nonsensical things happening.

May I suggest you consider the possibility that some issues were not as simple as you're saying? 'Course I'm not a lawyer either, so even with the transcript and notes I have on this case, I'm reluctant to debate things like legal claims of wrongdoing and the judge's state of mind. In fact, after going back and forth so many times on the strategic use of $200, I'd much rather talk about the Red Sox :-)
 
Insurance won't help you much if you get walked all over repeatedly and don't fight back.
... or rather...
I'll grant that the issues might not be as simple as I'm saying as soon as you grant that there is a lot more to the story than your simple writeup tells...
 
Statistical outlier amongst all the other inconsistencies noted above. Not a good example as HPSO does NOT cover vehicle crashes. If they did, the premiums would be much higher.

Still waiting on the proof of a medical malpractice claim where a paramedic was sued and had to pay. This is what HPSO "covers".
 
Summit said:
Insurance won't help you much if you get walked all over repeatedly and don't fight back.
... or rather...
I'll grant that the issues might not be as simple as I'm saying as soon as you grant that there is a lot more to the story than your simple writeup tells...
Click to expand...

Well, I only had 800 words :-) Yes, there's more to the story. Mostly, it gets scarier.
 
akflightmedic said:
Statistical outlier amongst all the other inconsistencies noted above. Not a good example as HPSO does NOT cover vehicle crashes. If they did, the premiums would be much higher.

Still waiting on the proof of a medical malpractice claim where a paramedic was sued and had to pay. This is what HPSO "covers".
Click to expand...

The guy's insurance did cover him. He just didn't have enough of it. I don't remember what brand he had.

"Statistical outlier"? Yes, but not for him.
 
It sounds like he was dipping into his own vehicle insurance coverage. A whole 'nother discussion....this thread was about HPSO or medical liability coverage and whether it is good deal or not. In short...it isn't.

I do not care to discuss all the variables in his case because he could have been at fault or not depending on which report emerged and other factors in the case. This case highlights caution with speeds and red lights but not much to do with personal medical liability insurance. But the criminal court determining him not guilty certainly reinforces that the majority of juries would not seek to penalize a "hero" especially when walking on backward legs and fractured pelvis and not realizing it. Dramatics will get one far in the court system, right or wrong.
 
Bullets said:
If i am working for my employer, i trust that any suit with me named in it will give me a decent representation and coverage.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't necessarily be so confident about that. Your employers insurance does cover you......but only indirectly.

The thing to understand is that this policy is your employers policy. If something big and bad happens that involves you and serious lawsuits start flying, one of the first things that will happen is that you will be called into a meeting with HR and your boss and an attorney (paid for by your employers insurer) and they will ask you very nicely to sign forms and releases that will "allow the lawyers to work on on your behalf". What those releases really do is give your employers the right to negotiate and settle without any further input from you. And of course you'll sign those forms willingly because you think those lawyers are working for you, and because you can't afford to hire your own even if you wanted to.

Once you sign those forms - and again, you probably don't have much choice - your employer's lawyers will defend you only insofar as defending you defends the employer. Maybe arguing that you did the right thing is in your employer's best interest, and maybe arguing that you clearly violated your training and policy and therefore your employer shouldn't be held responsible for your actions is the best way to protect the policyholder (your employer). It will depend and the circumstances and the lawyers strategy. If the latter happens, they'll agree to a settlement that leaves the employer looking as good as possible and having to pay as little as possible, regardless of what happens to you personally.

I don't know whether this argues for it being worth a paramedic carrying their own policy or not. On one hand I think it is really cheap insurance. On the other hand, the likelihood of you needing it is very small, and you having it could potentially even make it more likely that you are personally sued.
 
Beautiful Remi...excellent point. So many people fail to understand who the attorney works for exactly...
 
akflightmedic said:
Beautiful Remi...excellent point. So many people fail to understand who the attorney works for exactly...
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is exactly what your own insurance company does when they defend you. Their goal is to minimize their losses, not protect your reputation.
 
meatanchor said:
To be fair, this is exactly what your own insurance company does when they defend you. Their goal is to minimize their losses, not protect your reputation.
Click to expand...
Yep HSPO isn't in it to win the case, but to come out of it for the least cost.

What is better is to find a prepaid legal insurance that covers cases related to professional actions... nothing makes frivolous or even vindictive cases go away like having effectively free counsel and shallow pockets.
 
Summit said:
In a way, having liability insurance provides deep pockets.... your insurers. You might be kept in the case where you might have been dropped (SOP to name everyone then drop those who are poor targets (no deep pockets or no real liability).
Click to expand...


Liability insurance...as a liability. Hmm.

I do get the logic. But I would re-iterate the ability for insurance providers in our field to also provide representation during administrative hearings as well. Now, AK and STX may live in places where it is unlikely to be successful in individually suing a medic. State laws vary and some states have enacted protections against such actions. It has also been mentioned that the "deep pocket" are what attract suits. This is anecdotally true but a bit of a generalization. Plenty of patient attorneys have sued and followed through on suits against medical providers simply because of how mad they are. A greedy suit happy plaintiff is one thing. An angry family member is another story. I would also say that the person more likely to sue you is the person who generally has the means and the method which to sue you with if they so choose.

In talking with my colleagues who actually practice EMS law specifically, they note that not having enough money to be worth suing is not a recommended defense.

A judgement against you may result in an "execution" of that judgement. Have a car? A house? An expensive guitar? Guns? All fair game should the plaintiff "levy on the execution." Let's not forget either, just flat out filing for a "supplemental process" to have your wages garnished. You may not see yourself as a good target but the motivated party can ruin whatever happens to be there. How does that 100 dollars look now?

In mentioning the administrative actions, I am referring to the EMS licensing process at the state level. Yours may vary. Many times an administrative judge will preside over hearings regarding the violation of supposed rules and regulations, protocols, and the like. In this case, without proper representation (not by your company since this part involves your personal license) you may find yourself at the mercy of a system a few episodes of "Law and Order" won't help you to fake your way through.

Disclaimer: Not legal advice. Purely opinion. Seek your own legal advice from experts in your area and familiar with the laws, rules, and regulations where you practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top