Liability and Coverage for Contaminated-Product Claims
Kimberly Wynkoop, OMIC Legal Counsel
Digest, Fall 2012
The plethora of meningitis cases due to contaminated steroid injections has put compounding pharmacies under the microscope. Physicians are also being scrutinized for their part in prescribing and administering the tainted drugs. This article will look at ophthalmologists’ potential liability and the coverage OMIC’s policy provides should an OMIC insured be sued for prescription or use of contaminated compounded products.
As of November 7, 2012, 28 lawsuits in states from Minnesota to Florida had been filed against the New England Compounding Center (“NECC”), the pharmacy that compounded the steroids in the meningitis cases. Not only have the NECC corporate entity and executives been named as defendants, plaintiffs looking for deeper pockets are suing the physicians and clinics who supplied and administered the tainted injections.
Ophthalmologists use compounding pharmacies for a variety of products, including bevacizumab, Brilliant Blue-G (BBG), triamcinolone acetonide, and 5 percent Betadine. Compounded Trypan Blue, BBG, and Avastin have all been implicated in outbreaks of endophthalmitis. While no cases of ophthalmic injury from NECC products have been reported, its compounded betamethasone suspension was recalled due to potential contamination.
If a physician is named in a contaminated-product lawsuit, potential liability will depend on whether the plaintiff alleges product liability or professional liability (“medical malpractice”) and whether the court finds those claims applicable to the physician. Most state’s product liability laws provide for strict liability, which means a defendant can be held responsible without proof of fault. With strict product liability, all people or entities in the distribution chain are potentially liable. However, under some state’s laws, product liability claims against health care providers are not permitted. Product liability claims can also be based on negligence. A finding of negligence requires that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff, which caused the plaintiff to suffer damages.
There are three types of product liability defects: manufacturing, design, and failure to warn. A manufacturing defect occurs when the product is different than its design due to the manufacturing process. This includes contamination of the product during compounding as occurred at NECC.
A design defect means that the actual intended design of the product makes it unreasonably dangerous. In drug cases this usually means unreasonably severe side effects.
Failure to warn defects, also called marketing defects, occur when a product has improper or insufficient labeling, instructions, safety warnings, or recommendations for use. These marketing omissions can occur at the manufacturer, pharmacist, or provider level and often require a finding of negligence. The prescribing provider and even ancillary staff who instruct the patient on proper use of a drug or device may be liable as “learned intermediaries” between a drug’s manufacturer (or compounder) and the patient.
Medical malpractice, unlike product liability, always requires a finding of negligence. In this case, the breach of duty applies to the provision of medical services to the patient, not the sale of products. Therefore, in order for the court to determine whether product liability or malpractice should apply to a claim, it may attempt to determine if the provider “sold” the product. One way the court could do so is to look at the medical bills. Separate prices for the service (e.g. an injection) and the product (e.g. a steroid) could indicate a sale, whereas a global service charge or non-itemized bill would suggest a service.
If the prescription or administration of the contaminated product is considered a service, the plaintiff must show that the provider was negligent. For instance, did the provider fail to investigate the safety of the product being prescribed? Did the physician not obtain proper informed consent by failing to discuss all of the risks that went along with the use of the product? If the plaintiff can prove the physician breached this duty of care and the patient was harmed, the physician will be liable.
OMIC does not exclude coverage for an ophthalmologist’s prescription or use of compounded drugs or devices. OMIC respects the provider’s prerogative to select the most appropriate drug or device for a particular procedure or treatment for an individual patient even if it is off-label, unapproved, or compounded. OMIC’s policy covers insureds for allegations of medical malpractice based on an ophthalmologist’s direct patient treatment. This includes the prescribing or dispensing of medical supplies, devices, and drugs, including compounded products. However, OMIC’s policy does not cover product liability claims; it expressly excludes claims based on the designing, producing, manufacturing, assembling, distributing, marketing, or selling of any medical device or other product, including the failure to provide warnings or instructions with the product. If ophthalmologists will be reselling or otherwise participating in the distribution of products beyond direct patient treatment, they should secure separate coverage for product liability on a stand-alone basis or as part of a general liability package.
Sources:
American Academy of Ophthalmology, “Deadly Meningitis Outbreak Prompts Lawmakers to Consider Tighter Regulations on Compounding Pharmacies,” Member Alert, November 19, 2012.
Nick Brown, “Meningitis Lawsuits: Product Liability or Medical Malpractice?” The Insurance Journal, October 24, 2012.
Han W. Choi & Jae Hong Lee, “Pharmaceutical Product Liability,” Chapter 55, http://mofo.com.
Sarah Sellers and Wulf H. Utian, “Pharmacy Compounding Primer for Physicians: Prescriber Beware,” Drugs 2012: 72 (16): 2043-2050.
“Compounding Pharmacies – What Every Retina Specialist Needs to Know,” American Society of Retina Specialists Website.
“Overview of Medical Product and Drug Product Liability Cases,” Attorneys.com, http://www.attorneys.com/products-liability/overview-of-medical-product-and-drug-product-liability-cases/ (accessed November 8, 2012).
“Pharmaceutical Drug Liability,” Findlaw, http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/pharmaceutical-drug-liability.html (accessed November 8, 2012).
“Product Liability Claims Involving Pharmaceutical Drugs,” Nolo Law For All, http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/product-liability-claims-pharmaceutical-drugs-30314.html (accessed November 8, 2012).
“Products Liability and Prescription Drugs,” Louisiana Insurance Litigation Blog, Thornhill Law Firm, October 31, 2008, http://www.louisianainsurancelitigation.com/2008/10/products_liability_and_prescri.html.
Ophthalmologists’ Liability for the Actions of CRNAs
Kimberly Wynkoop, OMIC Legal Counsel
Digest, Summer 2012
Sedation or anesthesia for ophthalmic procedures may be administered by anesthesiologists or other qualified anesthesia providers. Ophthalmologists are exposed to legal liability for claims based on the actions of anesthetists, and OMIC’s policy is available to protect ophthalmologists if they do arise.
CRNAs as Employees or Agents
Supervising ophthalmologists may be held vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the CRNA under various theories of liability. The most common is respondeat superior, Latin for “let the superior respond” or “let the master answer.” Also termed the “master-servant rule,” this doctrine holds an employer or principal liable for the employee’s or agent’s wrongful (or negligent) acts committed within the scope of the employment or agency.
The fact that ophthalmologists are required to supervise nurse anesthetists’ provision of services during a procedure does not, by itself, create an employer-employee relationship, nor does it prevent ophthalmologists from maintaining independent contractor relationships with them (or no formal relationships at all, such as in a hospital setting). The substance of the relationship, not the label, governs the nurse anesthetist’s status as an employee or independent contractor. In order to determine whether a CRNA would be considered an employee, there are several factors to consider.
Does the ophthalmologist have a right to direct and control how the nurse anesthetist does the task for which he or she was hired? An employee is generally subject to the employer’s instructions about when, where, and how to work.
Does the CRNA bill separately for his or her own services? Independent contractors are more likely than employees to have non-reimbursed expenses and to bill separately for their own services. Whether under contract or not, an employee often will receive benefits and his or her compensation is subject to withholdings.
Control Over Independent CRNAs
As a general rule, ophthalmologists are not held liable for the negligent acts or omissions of independent CRNAs, even if—for billing and regulatory purposes—they are deemed to be their “supervisors,” unless the ophthalmologist controls or directs the actions of the anesthesia provider. Courts generally focus on the amount of control the treating physician exercises over the anesthesia provider to determine whether the physician should be liable for the anesthetist’s actions.
To determine if a physician has such control, courts consider who hired, could terminate, and pays the anesthetist, and who has the right to direct the anesthetist in the manner and performance of his or her work. The particular test to determine whether the supervising physician controls the anesthetist’s work varies by state.
In ASC and hospital settings, ophthalmologists are often required, under CMS regulations and/or state law, to supervise nurse anesthetists and sign various anesthesia-related orders, evaluations, and reports. It is OMIC’s understanding that the role of the treating physician, with relation to the provision of anesthesia services, is to (1) determine whether a patient requires the surgery or diagnostic procedure, (2) request that anesthesia be administered, and (3) determine that the patient is an appropriate candidate for the procedure and anesthesia. Therefore, it is not uncommon for the treating physician to be asked to sign perioperative orders for anesthesia, sedation, and anxiolytic drugs and to co-sign the pre-anesthesia evaluation conducted by the nurse anesthetist in addition to signing the record of the operation prepared by the circulating nurse as well as the dictated operative report. The fact that ophthalmologists sign certain anesthesia orders, evaluations, or records could be used by a plaintiff’s attorney to attempt to prove control, but without further evidence, it would probably not be sufficient.
Even if ophthalmologists do not have general control over a CRNA, the “borrowed servant” theory of liability provides that physicians can be held liable if they “borrow” another’s employee and acquire a temporary right of control over the employee that was originally possessed by the lending employer.
Negligent Supervision and Hiring
The supervising ophthalmologist may also be held liable for the CRNA’s actions under the theories of negligent supervision and negligent hiring. Negligent supervision arises from the rationale that physicians conducting professional activities through other professionals such as CRNAs are subject to liability for any injuries caused if the physician is negligent or reckless in supervising such activity. Negligent hiring may be alleged if the ophthalmologist knew or failed to use reasonable care to discover that the CRNA was not competent, fit, licensed, or certified to perform the required duties.
OMIC’s professional liability policy covers ophthalmologists for professional services incidents arising from direct patient treatment provided by “any person acting under the supervision, direction, or control of the insured at the time of the professional services incident, so long as that person was acting within the scope of his or her licensure, training, and professional liability insurance coverage, if applicable.” In other words, OMIC’s policy covers insureds for their liability arising from the supervision of nurse anesthetists, subject to all policy terms, conditions, and exclusions.
Entity Coverage
By Betsy Kelley OMIC VP, Product Management
Digest, Spring 2011
As the lead article illustrates, professional entities face a number of liability exposures. They have direct liability arising from administrative services the entity provides to the practice to facilitate the delivery of health care services. Such functions may include credentialing or supervisory activities, development of practice protocols, and maintenance of the premises. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, liability for an injury may be assigned to a party who did not cause the injury but who has a legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. For entities, vicarious liability arises from the acts, errors, and omissions (“actions”) of the owners, employees, and other health care providers who render services to the practice’s patients. Ophthalmologist– owners of the professional entity may be held vicariously liable for direct patient treatment provided by others as well. To protect insureds from these exposures, OMIC extends coverage under two separate insuring agreements.
Coverage C—Professional Entities
Under Coverage Agreement C: Professional Liability Coverage for Professional Entities, coverage is extended to the professional entity for its direct liability arising from direct patient treatment provided by the entity and for its vicarious liability arising from direct patient treatment provided by any person for whose actions it is legally responsible, so long as that person was acting within the scope of his or her licensure, training, and professional liability coverage, if applicable. Coverage also applies under Coverage Agreement C to any person or entity affiliated with the insured professional entity in his, her, or its capacity as a member, officer, director, partner, or shareholder of the entity (“member”). This includes not only vicarious liability coverage for claims arising from direct patient treatment provided by others for whose actions they are legally responsible, but also coverage for claims resulting from professional committee activities the member performs for the insured entity. Professional committee activities include formal accreditation, utilization review, credentialing, quality assurance, peer review, and similar board or committee services. Coverage Agreement C does not cover members for direct liability arising from their own direct patient treatment or vicarious liability for the actions of others arising outside of that member’s role as an entity owner. (Ophthalmologists named in the declarations are covered under Coverage Agreement A for these liabilities.)
Vicarious liability coverage provided under Coverage C is conditional. If the claim results from a professional services incident involving direct patient treatment provided by a health care provider not insured under the entity’s policy, the provider must maintain professional liability insurance with a carrier acceptable to OMIC during the term of his or her employment, contractual relationship with, or utilization of the facility of, the insured entity. In the event the provider failed to maintain insurance as required, OMIC will not defend the entity or its members or pay damages or other payments resulting from their vicarious liability for the actions of the uninsured provider. This is why we ask you to provide certificates of insurance for all non- OMIC associates at each renewal. OMIC will defend an insured against allegations of vicarious liability for the actions of others based on an apparent partnership between the insured and another health care provider or professional entity, but supplementary payments and damages are excluded from coverage. If you share office space with health care providers who are not owners, employees, or formal independent contractors of your practice, please contact an underwriting representative to request a “Guide to Apparent Partnership.”
Coverage E—Premises
Limited office premises liability is insured under Coverage Agreement E. The entity and its members are insured for claims resulting from injury to a patient or property damage to a patient’s personal, tangible property caused by a professional services incident resulting solely from premises maintenance performed by the insured or anyone for whom the insured is legally responsible. Premises maintenance refers to the insured’s ownership, maintenance, or use of the office premises in which the insured provides direct patient treatment. Premises liability coverage is subject to a maximum limit of $50,000 per claim/$150,000 annual aggregate. Office misadventures that result from negligent supervision or are otherwise related to direct patient treatment are considered professional liability cases and are not subject to this sublimit. Coverage Agreement E does not constitute and is not meant to replace commercial general liability coverage or other fire and property coverage for the insured’s office premises.
Please note that no coverage will extend to an entity, its non-physician employees, or its members in their capacity as members unless the entity is named as an insured on the policy declarations. If your entity is not listed on your declarations and you would like to obtain entity coverage, contact your underwriter at (800) 562-6642, ext. 639, for an application. Similarly, if you form or acquire a new entity, change the name of your entity, or make any other change in your entity affiliation, please notify OMIC as soon as possible to minimize the risk of uninsured liability.
Medical Board Investigations Should Not be Faced Alone
By Ryan Bucsi, Mr. Bucsi is a Senior Litigation Analyst with OMIC’s Claims Department.
Digest, Winter 2007
You would never attempt to represent yourself in a medical malpractice lawsuit and assume responsibility for taking all the necessary depositions, preparing your own trial exhibits, examining witnesses during trial, and convincing a jury that your care and treatment met the standard of care. You know that if you are faced with a malpractice complaint, your first course of action should be to call OMIC’s claims department so we can put you in touch with a defense attorney who will represent you throughout the course of litigation.
What you may not know is that OMIC is also here to defend you if you receive a letter of investigation from your state medical board regarding patient care you have rendered. Some insureds have failed to report these letters of investigation until after they have responded on their own. Unfortunately, when there is a significant delay in reporting the investigation to OMIC, the results can be as catastrophic as attempting to defend your own malpractice lawsuit.
For example, an OMIC insured received a letter of investigation from her state board requesting a complete copy of a patient’s chart. There was no request or requirement that the insured provide a written description or narrative of the patient’s care, just a request for the chart. Without contacting OMIC for advice, the insured not only sent the requested records to the medical board but also a detailed narrative outlining her treatment of the patient. The insured did not hear back from the medical board until a year later when she received a letter notifying her that the board had concluded its investigation and was bringing disciplinary charges against her.
In the year that passed between the request for the patient’s chart and the notification of disciplinary action, the state board had been busy retaining experts who testified that the insured’s care was indeed below the accepted standard. Based on this expert testimony, the board proposed the following disciplinary action against the insured: a fine in the thousands of dollars, reimbursement of the costs associated with the state board investigation, a letter of reprimand, community service, and continuing education.
It was at this point that the insured contacted OMIC for assistance. An attorney was assigned to represent her and experts were retained on her behalf. Unfortunately, the insured had put herself at a great disadvantage by directly responding to the medical board, and no facts that OMIC or defense counsel presented could persuade the board to reverse its decision or reduce the proposed penalties. In the process, the insured’s defense coverage limits for this investigation were exhausted. Had the insured contacted OMIC as soon as she received the initial letter of investigation, OMIC would have assigned legal counsel to assist her in writing a response, which could have improved her chances for a more favorable decision from the state board.
OMIC Policy Covers Defense of Medical Board Investigations
Most physicians are not properly trained to respond to medical board inquiries and investigations in a manner that benefits their position. The initial letter from a state medical board may seem like a harmless request for records or information on a patient; however, your initial response is vitally important and may determine whether the board proceeds with an investigation or dismisses the complaint. Significantly, medical board or licensure actions can result in suspension of your medical license, thus making these cases far more risky than a medical malpractice case.
Insureds should treat a notice of medical board investigation the same way they would treat a patient complaint letter or request for information from a plaintiff attorney and contact OMIC before responding. OMIC defense attorneys are experienced in dealing with medical board actions and oftentimes are familiar with the individuals in charge of the investigations. This type of firsthand experience is invaluable when preparing a response to a letter of investigation and may reduce the likelihood that the medical board will pursue the investigation further.
Coverage for state board investigations is included as a part of your OMIC policy: “OMIC shall defend any insured ophthalmologist…against any investigation, disciplinary proceeding, or action for review (hereinafter “investigation”) of the insured’s practice by any federal, state or local regulatory agency arising from a complaint or report by a patient to such an agency of an injury to that patient resulting from a professional services incident involving direct patient treatment provided by the insured. However, OMIC will have no liability for fines, sanctions, penalties, or other financial awards resulting from the investigation.”
Please note that OMIC provides defense coverage only and there is a limit to this coverage: “The most OMIC will pay per insured for the claim expenses for any one such investigation is $25,000. The most OMIC will pay per insured for claim expenses for all such investigations during the policy period or the extended reporting period will be $75,000.”
It has been OMIC’s experience that meeting or exceeding the $25,000 expense limit is rare. In OMIC’s history, only six cases have reached or exceeded the $25,000 coverage limit. In fact, in a review of 46 closed medical board cases, the average expense for these matters was roughly $5,000. The attorneys assigned by OMIC to handle these cases are aware of this limited defense coverage and have negotiated their hourly fees with OMIC accordingly. This gives OMIC insureds the best combination of experience and value as our attorneys will attempt to resolve the matter within policy limits, thus avoiding out-of-pocket defense expenses for the insured.
Patient Complaint Often Precedes Malpractice Claim
A patient complaint to the state medical board has all the attributes of a malpractice claim except that the patient is not demanding money from the insured. OMIC’s rationale for providing defense coverage for medical board investigations is that these cases are often precursors to impending legal actions. A patient who complains to an investigative entity is most likely unhappy with the insured’s care and might later decide to file a medical malpractice claim against the insured.
State medical boards have a duty and a right to investigate patient complaints. Even if the allegations seem frivolous and you do not personally have concerns about your care and treatment of the patient, it is still wise to refer the case to OMIC so an attorney can respond on your behalf. Any OMIC insured is susceptible to these types of complaints; however, the majority of cases historically come from a handful of states, notably Florida, Arizona, and Nevada. OMIC has also defended state board investigations in California, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, and Virginia. Regardless of which state you practice in, if you receive a notice of a state board investigation, please contact OMIC immediately.
When OMIC is brought in to defend these investigations early on, it has an excellent history of resolving them without fines or penalties being levied against the insured. Of 46 closed cases involving medical board investigations, 39 were dismissed without any type of adverse outcome for the insured. In all but two of these 39 cases, OMIC had assigned legal counsel on behalf of the insured. In the two cases that went before the state board without legal representation, the insureds did not report the complaint to OMIC until after they had responded to the initial letter of investigation. In the seven cases with adverse outcomes, the insureds were fined anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 in addition to the costs of the investigation. They also were required to perform hours of community service and undertake continuing medical education. The complaints in these seven cases pertained to wrong site surgery, wrong surgery performed, or incorrect implantation of intraocular lenses.
It is important to note that once disciplinary action has been taken by a state medical board, it reports the action to the federation of State Medical Boards and the National Practitioners Data Bank. Furthermore, the physician is required to report any such action to other states where he or she practices or has a medical license. OMIC recommends that insureds consult with their OMIC-appointed attorney regarding reporting requirements of state board actions.
In summary, the same type of caution that is applied to medical malpractice claims and lawsuits should be applied to state medical board investigations. Insureds should contact OMIC’s claims department as coverage for such occurrences exists within your OMIC policy. OMIC has experienced defense attorneys to assist insureds in responding to such inquiries. The goal of legal representation is to decrease the likelihood that an investigation will proceed past the initial stages and result in the levying of fines or disciplinary action against the insured.
State Medical Board Actions
As a matter of public policy, the practice of medicine is a privilege granted by the people of the state acting through their elected representatives. It is not a natural right of individuals. Therefore, each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories has a medical practice act that defines the practice of medicine and delegates the authority to enforce the law to a state medical board. In most states, the board regulates both allopathic and osteopathic physicians; in others, separate boards exist. There are currently 70 state medical boards authorized to regulate physicians.
Some of the functions of a state medical board include licensing physicians, investigating complaints, disciplining those who violate the law, conducting physician evaluations, and facilitating rehabilitation of physicians where appropriate. State laws require that boards assure fairness and due process to any physician under investigation.
Although medical boards sometimes find it necessary to suspend or revoke a license to practice, regulators have found that many problems can be resolved with additional education or training in appropriate areas.
In other instances, it may be more appropriate to place a physician on probation or place restrictions on a physician’s license to practice. This compromise protects the public while maintaining a valuable community resource in the physician. Probation and restrictions on a medical license may be in place while a physician receives further training or rehabilitation.
If a state medical board determines that a violation has occurred, it may take any of the following actions:
Reprimand or Censure – Physician receives a public admonishment.
Administrative fine/Monetary Penalty – Physician must pay a civil penalty fee imposed by the board.
Restitution – Physician must reimburse a patient or entity for monies improperly earned.
Probation – Physician’s license is monitored for a period of time.
Limitation or Restriction – Physician’s license is restricted in some way (e.g., a physician may be prohibited from performing specific procedures or prescribing certain drugs).
Suspension – Physician may not practice for a period of time.
Summary Suspension – Physician’s license is suspended immediately based on evidence that the physician’s practice presents a threat to public health and safety.
Voluntary Surrender of License – Physician surrenders license to avoid further disciplinary action.
Denial – Physician is not granted a license to practice or license is not renewed.
Revocation – Physician’s license is terminated and physician can no longer practice medicine.
To find out more about your state medical board, go to the federation of State Medical Boards’ website at www.fsmb.org/index.html.
Malpractice Coverage Extended to Eye Banks
By Betsy Kelley, OMIC Underwriting Manager
[Digest, Spring 1999]
Qualified eye banks may now purchase professional liability coverage from OMIC for direct and vicarious liability arising out of services they render. There are close to 100 eye banks in the U.S. to which OMIC might offer coverage and which might benefit from OMIC’s extensive expertise in ophthalmic underwriting, claims handling and risk management.
OMIC began exploring the feasibility of insuring eye banks last year at the request of a large insured network and its affiliated eye bank. A major factor in being able to sign on networks and other large ophthalmic groups is an insurer’s ability to provide coverage for eye banks, surgery centers and other related provider organizations affiliated with the network or group. After assessing the coverage needs and potential liability exposures of eye banks, the Underwriting Committee and Board of Directors determined that eye bank coverage would be a reasonable expansion of OMIC’s services to the eye care profession.
Who Qualifies?
Unlike other carriers that treat eye banks like any other “medical entity,” OMIC has carefully tailored an application form and underwriting guidelines specific to the activities and exposures of eye banks. To qualify for coverage, an eye bank must be a member of the Eye Bank Association of America or the American Association of Tissue Banks. As members of these organizations, eye banks must adhere to the medical standards developed by these organizations. OMIC has adopted these and other guidelines intended to reduce the likelihood of potential claims and to aid in the defense of any resulting claims. Additionally, the medical director or at least one board member must be a member of the American Academy of Ophthalmology for the eye bank to be eligible for coverage.
What is Covered?
OMIC also has crafted an Eye Bank Amendatory Endorsement to modify the standard policy terms and address the special liability issues of eye banks. For example, the definition of “professional services” has been modified to specifically include activities that eye banks perform: procuring, processing, testing, storing and distributing donor ocular tissue. In addition, the definition of “injury” has been broadened to include the possible allegations of disfigurement or mutilation of a cadaver and wrongful removal of tissue. Claims against eye banks are not common, but when they occur, most generally revolve around allegations that the donor tissue was obtained without the permission of authorized next of kin.
Coverage applies to the eye bank and its non-physician staff for their direct liability arising out of services they render. In addition, the eye bank is insured for its vicarious liability arising from services rendered on its behalf. Vicarious liability coverage arising from services rendered by employed or volunteer physicians applies provided these physicians maintain professional liability coverage themselves.
Policy Limits
Premiums for eye banks are based on a per-donation rate and vary based on the limits of liability selected and the eye bank’s retroactive date. OMIC offers a variety of limits ranging from $500,000 per claim/$1,500,000 aggregate to $5,000,000 per claim/$10,000,000 aggregate. (Lower limits of liability are available for eye banks that participate in their state’s patient compensation fund.) Limits apply on an indemnity-only basis. Defense costs are paid in addition to the limits, and unlike the coverages offered by other carriers that write eye bank coverage, OMIC’s coverage is “first dollar.” No deductible applies.
In addition to professional liability coverage, qualified eye banks also are eligible to purchase other insurance products available through OMIC, including coverage for directors and officers, errors and omissions, employment practices, Medicare/Medicaid fraud and abuse, workers’ compensation and business owners liability.
For more information on OMIC’s professional liability coverage for eye banks or other OMIC insurance products, please contact Betsy Kelley at (800) 562-6642, extension 630 or bkelley@omic.com.
