Dr. W, 56, was an experienced urologist in a small suburban community in the South. His surgical skills and common-sense approach earned him the trust of his patients. Many of his cases involved renal stones, and one such case involved him in a malpractice suit.

Dr. R, 32, graduated as the top resident in his urology program. He turned down an opportuni-ty in academia to join an established group practice in his hometown. Ironically, his stellar academic credentials worked against him when he was sued for malpractice a year later.

Dr. H, 54, is a urologist who works solo and is happy to do so. Earlier in his career he had practiced in a clinic setting, and he considered himself fortunate to have “escaped from the Stalag,” as he put it to his colleagues. Dr. H felt his independence allowed him to pursue a higher standard of care. A wrenching malpractice case put that belief to the test.

Dr. F, age 64, was ready for retirement after a lifetime in urology, and couldn’t wait to get his fly-fishing rod out of the closet. Although he had taken fishing vacations every year, he was looking forward to fishing new streams in remote locations and honing his “sideswiper” technique to avoid overhanging bushes. Before he left, he told his group to “lose his number” and “find another mule” to carry the load. His colleagues laughed, not thinking he would soon be back in the office defending a malpractice case.

Dr. P, 32, was a new graduate from a respected urological residency program. He was considered well-trained, but not a star, in the field of general urology. His first position was with a multispecialty clinic, where he worked with several other urologists. It was malpractice insurance coverage after he left the clinic’s employment, so-called “tail coverage,” that resulted in a lawsuit.

Dr. Y, age 57, is an experienced general urologist who practices at a university hospital in the Northeast. In his clinical setting, the family physician—often one from the university’s own clinic—retains control of the patient even if he’s admitted by a specialist. This arrangement is ostensibly to ensure that the patient receives comprehensive care. Dr. Y, while conceding the validity of this holistic approach, resented having FP residents writing orders on his patients, orders that sometimes interfered with his care.

Dr. R, a 59-year-old urologist, felt he was nearing a well-deserved retirement, but then a malpractice case derailed his final plans.

Dr. E was a well-respected urologist whose pragmatic approach and wide experience gave him a reputation as the “go-to” man when things got tough. As a result, he often found himself used as a “superconsultant” on difficult cases, struggling with critical clinical situations that did not always have a positive outcome.

When Dr. R, age 33, finished his urologic residency and went in search of a location to settle down, he selected a community hospital in a rural area. He was attracted because the hospital already had two urologists on the staff, and he was assured by the hospital administrator that the ER call was on a rotating basis.

Dr. H, age 35, recently graduated from a well-recognized urology residency and considered himself a well-trained surgeon who could deal with almost anything. He joined a large group in a pleasant Midwestern city, becoming one of four urologists. But he hadn’t been in practice long when he faced his first malpractice suit.