"The Rules To Effectively Litigating
Hard To Win LASIK Injury Cases."
By
Dean Andrew Kantis
Founder of www.LifeAfterLasik.com
Founder of www.LifeAfterLasik.com
First,
what is the statute of limitations, and why is
this important for the patient to understand prior to having irreversible LASIK
eye surgery that permanently thins out the patient's cornea, and can
potentially create severe dry eye syndrome and other visual complications such
as halos, glare, double vision, starburst, foreign body sensation, etc.
"THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND
THE
TIME BOMB OF POST LASIK ECTASIA:"
The
statute of limitations refers to the period within which you must start a
lawsuit. If you fail to act in timely fashion, a court will dismiss your lawsuit,
no matter how strong your claim may have been. Consequently, victims can be
left without any legal remedy. The statutes of limitations for medical
malpractice vary from state to state in duration (and exceptions).
The main point that needs to be understood is that patients who had LASIK need to consider the fact that post-LASIK ectasia may not surface for years after surgery. In some instances, their right to sue may be over before they even knew they had a case.
To
learn more about LASIK, the time bomb of ectasia, and the statute of
limitations consider: http://www.krounerlaw.com/the-statute-of-limitations-and-time-bomb-of-post-lasik-ectasia .
"HOW CAN PATIENTS PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS IF THE SURGERY
DOES NOT GO AS PLANNED AND WHAT LEGAL RECOURSE DO THEY HAVE?"
Given
the comprehensive nature of LASIK informed consent forms, the patient wonders
how he can sue when this fine print regrettably applies to him. First, the
consent form does not protect the doctor from his own negligence. For example,
if the patient initially was not a good candidate for surgery, if the doctor
was negligent in performing the surgery, or if the laser malfunctioned, the
informed consent form will not protect the doctor.
So, when might the informed consent form matter? An article in Cornea reports that 20% of LASIK patients suffer varying degrees of dry eye after LASIK surgery.[1] More candid surgeons admit the true number is closer to 50%. As a general rule, the complication or side effect of dry eyes is not due to any error or mistake by the doctor. It is generally considered to be a known and accepted risk of the surgery. The doctor tells you this so that you are not surprised if it happens to you. Dry eyes generally are not a sign of malpractice.
However, failing to inform a patient about this common side effect would constitute a breach of the duty of informed consent. Informed consent is a process. It is not a piece of paper. The pre-printed informed consent form is prepared for the vast majority of refractive laser surgery patients. But if the patient is at higher risk because he has a pre-existing corneal condition or disease, such as keratoconus, has suspicion for ectasia, or has a thin cornea, the doctor has a duty to inform his patient that he is not a good candidate for a refractive surgery. To learn more about informed consent and eye surgery read: http://www.krounerlaw.com/informed-consent .
IF YOU'D LIKE TO RECEIVE MORE
INFORMATION ON LITIGATING A LASIK OR REFRACTIVE SURGERY CASE, PLEASE SEE THE
FOLLOWING:
Todd
J. Krouner founded The Law Office of Todd J.
Krouner in October 1994. For the past decade, he has worked on a diverse range
of plaintiffs’ LASIK litigation matters. In July 2005, he obtained a verdict of
$7.25 million, which is the largest verdict ever for a case involving LASIK medical
malpractice, Schiffer v. Speaker, et al. In 2009, Mr. Krouner
obtained the second largest LASIK verdict of $5.4 million, including a record
$3 million for his client’s pain and suffering alone, in Devadas v. Niksarli.
To date, nationwide, Mr. Krouner has successfully tried or settled nearly two dozen LASIK, or related eye, medical malpractice cases. At www.krounerlaw.com , he has a LASIK blog that offers some great tips and advice for potential patients or persons who have been injured as a result of eye surgery:
http://www.krounerlaw.com/lasik-blog .
Mr. Krouner was also the only attorney who spoke on behalf of injured LASIK patients at the April 25, 2008 emergency LASIK Ophthalmic FDA panel discussion held in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He also alleged that the LASIK industry is known for "underreporting dissatisfied/permanent injury outcomes."
Mr. Krouner was also the only attorney who spoke on behalf of injured LASIK patients at the April 25, 2008 emergency LASIK Ophthalmic FDA panel discussion held in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He also alleged that the LASIK industry is known for "underreporting dissatisfied/permanent injury outcomes."
Yet
the physician and LASIK mills continue to say "the patient was a success
and made better," even though the patient completely disagreed. Lastly, Mr.
Krouner encouraged the FDA to police and inspect LASIK factories to make sure
they were following FDA laws and following mandatory MDR physician reporting of
all "adverse outcomes” so that the FDA is aware of all LASIK injured
patient cases. If you had a poor
refractive surgical outcome and would like to know more about litigating
against your eye doctor or the laser manufacturer, then I recommend that you reach
out to Todd Krouner and ask him to evaluate your case to see if there is the
potential to recover for your pain and suffering, loss of income and medical
expenses due to your loss of vision.
Law
Office of Todd J. Krouner
93
North Greeley Avenue
Chappaqua, New York 10514
Telephone: (914) 238-5800
Chappaqua, New York 10514
Telephone: (914) 238-5800
Email:
info@krounerlaw.com
[1]
Bailey
M.D., Zadnik K., Outcomes of LASIK for myopia with FDA-approved lasers, Cornea,
2007, Apr.; 26(3):246-54.