My husband was seriously harmed by a doctor's malpractice. The Oregon Board of Medical Practitioners found this doctor guilty of several counts of gross negligence and causing my husband serious patient harm. They revoked his license and pronounced him to be a danger to the public. We hired a malpractice attorney who told us that in his 30 years of medical malpractice prosecutions, he had never seen such an 'open and shut case'. He filed suit. During the discovery process, he discovered that the doctor was not insured, and so he walked away. Prior to this doctor's dangerously wrongful treatment, we owned a thriving business, built up over 20 years, a beautiful commercial building, and a wonderful home on a lake. The business is now in tatters, we have lost the building, and our home is in foreclosure. My question is: how on earth could Oregon allow doctors to practice medicine without malpractice insurance - and without disclosure of that fact to the public - when those same doctors cannot legally drive their cars without insurance? How do we hold the State accountable, and alert the unsuspecting public to the fact their doctors may not be insured - and obtain some sort of justice for ourselves?

You can always sue the State - in fact, you can always sue anybody for anything - but winning such a lawsuit is going to be very difficult. Just for starters you have to prove that Oregon KNEW this Physician was a danger and did nothing to protect the public from him. I have done some research and find no requirement that a Physician carry malpractice insurance in Oregon. Therefore, I see no responsibility in that area, either.

The person to be asking these questions is the Attorney who handled the malpractice action. He/she has far more knowledge of your specific case and State law than anyone here.

As far as alerting the public that Physicians are practicing without insurance you can get the eye/ear of the media and attempt to get a law passed requiring this insurance.

You are, indeed, a victim here. No question and I am sympathetic, very sympathetic, in fact, but I don't see that the State is in any way responsible for the failure of the Physician to carry insurance unless there was a requirement to do so, the State knew he did not have insurance and Oregon did nothing. That does not appear to be the case.

Thank you for your response. My complaint is not so much that Oregon does not mandate that doctors carry malpractice insurance, but that they do not make DISCLOSURE of non insurance mandatory, BEFORE a patient elects to enter into a patient/doctor relationship. A patient has the right to this critically important information - and everyone I have asked "Is your doctor insured?" is shocked to hear insurance is optional for doctors - and they do not have to disclose such information. Even the person I spoke to at the Oregon Bar Association was not aware of this situation - and expressed concern. We have 2 major concerns here: our losses have been too great to simply 'suck up' without a fight... and we want to get the system fixed, before more lives are ruined/lost. "All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." You may be as shocked as we were, to learn that the doctor in question has just opened a new office... still calling himself 'doctor', although the Oregon Board of Medical Practitioners revoked his license, and declared him to be a 'danger to the public'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junebug3579

they do not make DISCLOSURE of non insurance mandatory, BEFORE a patient elects to enter into a patient/doctor relationship.

---

Oh, but they do. It is up to the patient to do the research. Before I became an RN, I always researched my doctors prior to my visit.

For Oregon you can find that info here.

Medical Board License Verification

You are oh-so-wrong! Even the very experienced malpractice attorney we hired could not access disclosure re malpractice insurance until AFTER he had filed suit. And even the Oregon Board of Medical Practitioners did not know whether this doctor was insured. That information is NOT AVAILABLE until AFTER a catastrophic event - such as the near-death of my husband! - and a lawsuit is filed, which then takes us into the 'discovery' process. And THAT is when we 'discover' the doctor's insurance status! Just try driving your car, getting stopped by the police and asked for your insurance verification... would your response be "None of your business, until I have an accident"? It's outrageous! Oregon is VERY strict about disclosure, disclosure, disclosure re anything pertaining to real estate transactions - and that's just property! And, to repeat: EVERY one of the many, many people we have asked: "Is your doctor insured?" has replied - without exception that "..they have to be...". Are they all stupid??

As a consumer (which is exactly what a patient is) you have SOME responsibility for asking questions, including whether the Doctor is insured. If he/she then decides you are too potentially litigious to be a patient and refuses to treat you move on to another Doctor. I'm an investigator. I had a very sick husband. I asked and ask.

As I said - the patient bears some responsibility here.

I realize you are upset but there is a world of difference between driving a car, getting stopped by the Police and refusing the disclose insurance info and a situation involving malpractice. Or are you saying you DID ask and the Doctor refused to disclose the info?

As a side note I am very surprised that an Attorney has taken your case when there is no insurance. That would be quite unusual in my area of NY - no insurance, no interested Attorney.

Hi Judy... my husband smiled, when he saw you are from New York - he's from Long Island.

Oregon is very different! A doctor is NOT obliged to disclose whether he is, or is not, covered - that's my beef! During the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners lengthy investigation, the Investigator assigned to our case spoke to me at length by phone. She indicated there was NO WAY to discover whether a doctor is insured until after a lawsuit is filed. Again... I find this outrageous - and extremely negligent on the part of the State Legislature, in view of the risk the unsuspecting public is exposed to.

The attorney who filed the lawsuit did walk away upon 'discovering' there was no insurance cover. So, logically, we have to pursue the entity which allowed that situation to exist. Disclosure is of paramount importance - especially when someone is literally being entrusted with a person's life. And this particular disclosure should be handed to a potential new patient on an individual form - not buried in a paper shuffle.

As every doctor who attended my husband said: "This is not a case of your husband's health breaking down - all this was artificially induced by his doctor".

Incidentally... Oregon, a few years ago, legislated that all builders must carry liability insurance - not only for themselves, but also for ever sub who works on the project - and even for the people who clean the building after completion. Many builders quit, because they just could not afford the cost - others borrowed the money and/or refinanced their homes, just to stay in business.

Are people's lives less important than the homes they buy??

Well, if I asked and a Doctor refused to answer I'd be on my way out the door.

As far as the builder/Doctor discussion - again, I cannot even begin to imagine how upsetting all of this must be to you but those are moral arguments, not legal arguments - unfortunately.

And I am amazed that an Attorney is taking this "on" with no insurance coverage involved.

I am no legal expert but I am curious how a doctor can practice in a hospital if he is not insured.Does that not make the hospital culpable for the malpractice?
That is assuming of course that his treatment took place in a hospital.

The ORIGINAL malpractice attorney DID walk away, once he 'discovered' the doctor had no insurance. On the recommedation of Oregon Bar Association, we are about to consult an attorney who is very experienced in Federal court work - with a view to making sure this particular buck stops at the State's door.

To go back to Judy's comment: "Well, if I asked and a Doctor refused to answer I'd be on my way out the door.", we have 'polled' literally hundreds of people with the question: "Is your doctor insured?" Without exception ALL have answered: "...they have to be...." There is obviously a serious problem here, which needs a spotlight - and which needs to be addressed. MANDATORY disclosure on the part of an uninsured doctor BEFORE the prospective patient enters into a relationship with him, would take care of that - and should already be in place.

My husband and I - for twenty years - have owned a very busy real estate company. Oregon's disclosure laws are very strict - and penalties for non-disclosure very grim. It would blow your mind, if you knew how MANY disclosure forms we have to have signed by the clients - just as it blows our minds that this same State does not think it necessary to have doctors disclose such an important fact as being uninsured!

Incidentally, some State representatives I have spoken to were unaware that malpractice insurance is optional in Oregon - and they agreed that the disclosure issue is serious.

I will keep you posted... One thing is for sure: I will not let this go until some change has been effected - and I have done all I can to prevent another couple from experiencing the three years of hell we have been through.