[QUOTE=ivylass]
In Florida, doctors can choose not to carry malpractice insurance if they meet certain criteria. The doctor who’s doing my biopsy does not carry malpractice insurance.
I’m assuming doctors must prove they have the financial wherewithal to handle any lawsuits, correct? If, for some reason, something goes horribly wrong, am I SOL in seeking compensation from him?
Is this legal in all states?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not familiar with any laws of Florida, much less medical licensing issues, even much less insurance questions (other parts of my department handle those). This being said, it’s obvious that this is not legal advice, all other disclaimers, etc.
If something does go wrong, the matter of the doctor not having insurance does not preclude you from filing a claim or seeking a claim. The lack of insurance means that you have one less avenue, and according to prevailing litigating though, less of an overall remedy available to you (because insurance companies have deeper pockets than insurance companies).
If you’re wondering about the risk of seeing a doctor with no insurance, that is an issue that really only you can answer. There is an inherent risk in all transactions, whether social, business or medical, and like with all transactions, something unintentionally can go wrong, even with the most strident of professionals. In terms of risk management, unless this doctor is super-wealthy, in general, all things being equal, you take on less risk by seeing a doctor with actual insurance.
Another thing to consider is that the licensing board of FL might have different/more stringent/more comprehensive methods to licensing its doctors such that they feel that insurance is not mandatory. In combination with this thought, the FL legislature might make make the it harder to establish a level of negligence necessary to file a claim.
If things do go horribly wrong, perhaps you or your estate can take comfort to be a symbol of change for the current system. 