Counseling Claims – Personal Injury Claims – "Other" Claims

Counseling Claims

Counseling is also a growing area of claims as compared with just a few years ago. Most of these claims are for "failure to counsel," but a few involve allegations of "inadequate" or "incorrect" counseling. Many times the patient reports the pharmacist failed to counsel, but the pharmacist believes that he or she did counsel. This is also a growing area of board of pharmacy disciplinary actions. 


It is important that the pharmacist follow state law. It is equally important that there be some form of quick documentation which can be later shown as proof that counseling took place. One possibility is a mark on each new prescription such as "O/W-- initials of RPh-date" written on the front of the prescription. This shows the pharmacist provided oral counseling (O) and provided written counseling (W) in the form of a patient information leaflet. Documentation must always be after the fact, so the marks must be made only after the counseling was actually given. This documentation is not perfect, but it should help. 

Personal Injury (non-bodily injury)

Personal injury is an insurance term, also called non-bodily injury claims. These claims involve libel, slander, false arrest, and unauthorized release of confidential records. Unauthorized release of confidential records accounts for the majority of these types of claims. This represents another fast growing area of professional liability claims against pharmacists. These claims usually involve the pharmacist or technician, but may involve any employee in the pharmacy.

"Other" Claims

Safety cap claims either involve the pharmacist not following federal law, or the pharmacist being unable to prove it was the patient who requested "no safety cap." From our claims experience, the pharmacist can not rely on a notation in the computer nor on the testimony, "I always use safety caps unless the patient requests otherwise." For the pharmacist's protection, the patient or caregiver should be required to sign a written request for each new prescription.  This category has been shrinking over the past few years because of better compliance with the law. 

Generic claims have usually involved pharmacist mistakes. The pharmacist believes the product is generically equivalent and bioequivalent, but is wrong. Recently, however, we have received a couple of claims involving AB rated drugs. In these few cases, damages have been alleged, but we do not believe they have been proved to be as a result of the substitution.