 |
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O'Bryan v. Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board11/8/2002 ll of the volunteer participants.
In 1997, the board promulgated LAC 37: III, Chapter 5, §505 and §507. This rule addresses the issue of continuing ("gap" or "tail") health care coverage, provided the health care provider meets the premium payment conditions of the underlying coverage. Subsection E of §505 indicates the following:
E. The insurance coverage required by this Rule to demonstrate the requisite financial responsibility for qualification with the Fund shall be deemed to be continuing without a lapse in coverage by the Fund, provided that the health care provider meets the premium payment conditions of the underlying overage. (Underlining supplied.)
Thereafter, §507E states:
E. To maintain financial responsibility for continuing enrollment or qualification with the Fund, a health care provider shall at all times maintain the unimpaired principal value of the deposit provided for by this Section at not less than $125,000. The value of the health care provider's deposit shall be deemed impaired when any portion is seized pursuant to judicial process. (Underlining supplied.)
Neither the rule, the judgment, or the written reasons for judgment by the district court unilaterally requires a health care provider to purchase "gap" or "tail" coverage in order to obtain "occurrence" based self-insurance coverage", i.e., for acts committed during the term of the self insurance coverage. Notwithstanding Dr. O'Bryan's assertions to the contrary and the majority opinion, my interpretation of the court's judgment is that it simply declared that the statutory "security device" does not, additionally, entitle a provider to coverage for the risk of claims that ought arise during the previous "claims made" time frame. Moreover, the court found that the board acted within its rule-making authority when it promulgated a rule to allow health care providers the option of purchasing "gap" or "tail" coverage upon the establishment of additional financial security. Finding no error of law in the board's promulgation of said rules requiring additional financial requirements in the event a provider would wish to supplement the standard coverage with "gap" or "tail" coverage, I would affirm the lower court declaratory judgment in all respects.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|