Mary Kay Scott and Nicholas Riley obtained a not guilty verdict for a defendant ophthalmologist, and the corporation after 11 day trial
Mary Kay Scott and Nicholas Riley represented an ophthalmologist and the ophthalmology corporation in a case alleging improper measurements and lens choice for cataract surgery. The claim of damages was that the plaintiff had to wear glasses or corrective lenses, with a minor correction in order to have 20/20 and 20/30 vision. Plaintiff who wore soft contact lenses for years, claimed she could not wear contacts, and that she could not tolerate wearing glasses, even though she had glasses. Plaintiff was not working at the time of the surgery, and wanted the surgeries performed quickly due to being out of work. She never sought employment after the surgeries. There was no lost wage claim or medical bills submitted to the jury. The demand was $5.5 million for loss of a normal life experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future.
Plaintiff came to the defendant ophthalmologist on June 24, 2017, and was diagnosed with bilateral cataracts. She wanted a consultation as to a having LASIK procedure, and was not a candidate for LASIK due to the cataracts. Discussion was had by the physician as to the potential options including not having anything done for the cataracts, and plaintiff chose that option. Then in October of 2017, the patient made an appointment for cataract surgery, and was seen on October 19, 2017. Her best corrected vision on that date was 20/400. At that time, measurements were taken of both eyes, as is done for patients with bilateral cataracts, and the plaintiff chose a Symfony multi-focal lens after being consented and advised as to the potential complications. The plaintiff signed not only a consent at the office, but also a consent at the surgery center where the cataract surgery was performed. Surgery occurred the following day on the left eye, and plaintiff’s vision improved on the post-operative follow-up. One day after surgery her vision was 20/50. She was again consented in advance and signed 2 additional consents for the Symfony multi-focal lens. She proceeded to have the right eye cataract surgery on October 25, 2017, using the measurements from before the first surgery given that the vision had improved significantly after the first cataract surgery. On the first post-operative day after the second cataract removal and lens placement surgery her vision again improved. On November 17, 2017, she ultimately had a 3rd procedure, which was not at issue in the case, where the ophthalmologist placed a piggyback lens to fine tune her vision. That improved the vision, and she signed a consent for another piggyback lens placement, but left the practice before the surgery was performed. Plaintiff saw other treating physicians who recommended additional surgery to improve the vision, but she did not proceed to any further surgery with any physician.
The defense of the case was that the measurements appeared reliable and symmetrical right eye to right eye, and left eye to left eye. Therefore, given that she was a soft contact lens wearer it was appropriate to proceed to surgery the next day, given the patient’s desire to proceed to surgery quickly. Further the defense was that the plaintiff had a known complication of refractive surprise or IOL miscalculation, meaning that the measurements obtained did not match up to the vision that the patient ultimately reached. However, over time including when she was seen in 2020 by another treating physician, her vision continued to improve to 20/20 with minor correction, which she refused to use.
The plaintiff obtained a class B drivers’ license in 2021, meaning she could drive with correction. She admitted that she drives in the neighborhood to stores. She and her male friend traveled to Las Vegas for vacation. During the trial she was able to walk initially without any assistance before the jury, but later walked in on the arm of her male friend. Further she was able to read documents given to her by her attorney before the jury. There was a high/low entered into, prior to the verdict, and payment was made on the low given the not guilty verdict of the jury.