Lasik Eyes Surgery - Avoid CRSQA "certified" surgeons in LA

Author

Avoid CRSQA "certified" surgeons in LA

Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM

2004-10-19, 2:08 am

http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa_sur..._hazardous.html

http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/Webp...s%20Webpage.htm

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (CRSQA) was founded by
Executive Director Glenn Hagele (an individual who, by the way, reportedly
wears glasses). Despite its pretentious name, CRSQA is in reality a cynical
marketing ploy. CRSQA "certifies" a few dozen refractive surgeons who pay
it the enormous fees of $7,000 in the first year and $5,000/year thereafter.
In exchange, they receive CRSQA's dubious seal of approval in the apparent
hope that this will help them promote their Lasik practices. CRSQA's
quality "standards," if they can be called that, are pathetic. A doctor can
become CRSQA-certified even if he reports a 3% incidence of "debilitating
refractive surgery complications" in his practice.
Mr. Hagele's primary concern is to help refractive surgeons market
themselves - not to raise their standards of medical care. There is plenty
of talk at CRSQA about market segmentation analysis, but almost nothing
about concrete measures to improve surgical outcomes.
CRSQA's "certification" is worthless from a medical perspective. For
example, CRSQA at one time certified Glenn A. Kawesch as meeting its quality
standards. Yet Dr. Kawesch was considered such a dangerous doctor that the
California State authorities revoked his medical license on 6/25/04. Dr.
Joseph Dello Russo is another CRSQA-certified doctor who has had a fair
amount of legal trouble, as well. "Caveat Emptor" is the operative phrase
when reviewing the referrals at CRSQA.
Finally, any argument that CRSQA's not-for-profit status confers upon it a
mantle of legitimacy is spurious because Mr. Hagele draws a salary as
CRSQA's Executive Director. His livelihood is therefore directly linked to
CRSQA's financial success. Not-for-Profit status does not confer
legitimacy, and is often used by sham organizations trying to garner
undeserved credibility.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-19, 11:10 am

All bovine fertilizer that has been addressed before, but will be
addressed again:

1) Dr. Kawesch is proof positive that CRSQA will decertify a surgeon
who is no longer operating within our requirements. We did so about a
year and a half before the medical board acted.

2) Dr. Dello Russo's "legal trouble" includes him suing vendors who
did not deliver as promised and suing others to protect his assets and
rights. There is no unusual "legal trouble" regarding medical care.

3) Very few nonprofit organizations do not pay their full-time
permanent employees. I do not apologize for being paid for what I do.

4) One must consider the credibility of the source of any information.
So let's look at Hanson's cited LasikInfoCenter.net.

LasikInfoCenter is owned by New York attorney Ariel Berschadsky who
for years clearly attempted to hide his ownership of the anti-lasik
website. One must wonder why.

Berschadsky uses LasikInfoCenter to generate LASIK malpractice
clients, although people using his LasikInfoCenter do not know that is
a purpose of the website or that they are being referred by and to the
same person. This may be considered a violation of the ethics rules
of the New York State Bar Association.

Berschadsky has published on this website over 75 articles from
journals, magazines, and newspapers for which he has not received
permission to republish them, according to my own investigation. This
is a clear violation of copyright law. Ironically, on his website
promoting his law practice, Berschadsky lists copyright as one of his
specialties. Berschadsky even went so far as to publish on
LasikInfoCenter a letter from the owner of one of the items he
filched, demanding that he remove the item immediately. Berschadsky
has refused.

Berschadsky is being investigated by the New York State Bar
Association for misconduct due to apparent inappropriate content on
his website.

Not surprisingly, Berschadsky represented Hanson when Hanson publicly
published several private email messages between surgeons without the
permission or knowledge of the surgeons or the association that
operated the private message center.

Several of the claims made by Berschadsky in the statement quoted by
Hanson are not a facts and are false. Nothing considered by a
reasonably intelligent individual support these accusations.

Yes, one should consider the source of all information.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Rebecca

2004-10-19, 7:21 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<l98an0dsciib2hamdgko2pbkqv8beooh2m@4ax.com>...

> 2) Dr. Dello Russo's "legal trouble" includes him suing vendors who
> did not deliver as promised and suing others to protect his assets and
> rights. There is no unusual "legal trouble" regarding medical care.

Glenn,

That last sentence (no unusual legal trouble regarding medical care)
is rather vague. Could you please elucidate? In particular, I don't
think that you really mean specifically that there are not (or have
not been this year) a substantial number of medical malpractice
lawsuits pending against Dr Dello Russo - however, many readers would
probably assume so from this statement.

Thank you,

Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-19, 10:10 pm

When we evaluate a surgeon we look at the number of malpractice suits
in the non-public National Practitioner Data Bank and compare that
number to the number of procedures the surgeon has performed to be
certain that the percentage is not unusually high by our standards.
For our standards regarding certification, visit
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/certification_request.html

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Rebecca

2004-10-20, 7:08 am

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<jdlbn019hip8u0ma2fq5rht7j3g7f4pedt@4ax.com>...
> When we evaluate a surgeon we look at the number of malpractice suits
> in the non-public National Practitioner Data Bank and compare that
> number to the number of procedures the surgeon has performed to be
> certain that the percentage is not unusually high by our standards.
> For our standards regarding certification, visit
> http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/certification_request.html
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.

I see.

Is the NPDB specifically covering only cases that have gone to trial and lost?

Sandy

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

"Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM" <brent@nospam_lasikfraud.com> wrote in message news:<JtqdndP0d7zaNencRVn-gw@pghconnect.com>...
> http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa_sur..._hazardous.html
>
> http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/Webp...s%20Webpage.htm
>
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (CRSQA) was founded by
> Executive Director Glenn Hagele (an individual who, by the way, reportedly
> wears glasses). Despite its pretentious name, CRSQA is in reality a cynical
> marketing ploy. CRSQA "certifies" a few dozen refractive surgeons who pay
> it the enormous fees of $7,000 in the first year and $5,000/year thereafter.
> In exchange, they receive CRSQA's dubious seal of approval in the apparent
> hope that this will help them promote their Lasik practices. CRSQA's
> quality "standards," if they can be called that, are pathetic. A doctor can
> become CRSQA-certified even if he reports a 3% incidence of "debilitating
> refractive surgery complications" in his practice.
> Mr. Hagele's primary concern is to help refractive surgeons market
> themselves - not to raise their standards of medical care. There is plenty
> of talk at CRSQA about market segmentation analysis, but almost nothing
> about concrete measures to improve surgical outcomes.
> CRSQA's "certification" is worthless from a medical perspective. For
> example, CRSQA at one time certified Glenn A. Kawesch as meeting its quality
> standards. Yet Dr. Kawesch was considered such a dangerous doctor that the
> California State authorities revoked his medical license on 6/25/04. Dr.
> Joseph Dello Russo is another CRSQA-certified doctor who has had a fair
> amount of legal trouble, as well. "Caveat Emptor" is the operative phrase
> when reviewing the referrals at CRSQA.
> Finally, any argument that CRSQA's not-for-profit status confers upon it a
> mantle of legitimacy is spurious because Mr. Hagele draws a salary as
> CRSQA's Executive Director. His livelihood is therefore directly linked to
> CRSQA's financial success. Not-for-Profit status does not confer
> legitimacy, and is often used by sham organizations trying to garner
> undeserved credibility.

Is CRSQA certifying surgeons for the implantation of "eye jewelry"
now? I understand that at least one Los Angeles CRSQA-certified
surgeon is now performing this procedure, although the splashy
advertisement has been removed from the front page of his website.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-20, 7:11 pm

>Is the NPDB specifically covering only cases that have gone to trial and lost?

Originally the NPDB only provided information on successful
malpractice suits of $50k or more, although I now see claims as low as
$15k reported. Any adverse action by an insurance company, licensing
agency, or hospital where a doctor has privileges are also reported.
The NPDB is not available to the public, but as a recognized
certification organization we are able to retrieve the information.

Lawsuits that are filed but have not been settled or litigated will
not be in the NPDB. We have to use local services to go to the court
of jurisdiction to pull up that information for us - which we do.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-20, 7:11 pm

CRSQA's certification only relates to refractive surgery, such as
LASIK, PRK, IntraLASIK, LASEK, P-IOL, RLE, etc. We do not evaluate
how well a doctor does "eye jewelry".

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

serebel

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote in message news:

> Is CRSQA certifying surgeons for the implantation of "eye jewelry"
> now? I understand that at least one Los Angeles CRSQA-certified
> surgeon is now performing this procedure, although the splashy
> advertisement has been removed from the front page of his website.

who cares if people get "eye jewelry"? If that's what people want,what
business would that be of yours? You are not the planet's hall
monitor.

SErebel

Rebecca

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<5hfdn0914fhpc7anr7c46ari2vghebbm0k@4ax.com>...
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Lawsuits that are filed but have not been settled or litigated will
> not be in the NPDB. We have to use local services to go to the court
> of jurisdiction to pull up that information for us - which we do.

You do... pull it up, but to clarify (again) these numbers are not
counted towards the 1 in 500 limit in your certification process, at
least not per your website. However, on second thoughts, Dr Dello
Russo has such high volume that even the extremely large number of
medical malpractice cases a lawyer told me last summer were pending
against him could still fit safely within that 1 in 500 ratio.

Perhaps that is of some comfort to a customer considering getting
surgery. But it is probably not very consoling to plaintiff #26,

Rebecca

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-21, 7:12 pm

The 1 successful malpractice case in 500 is not as hard and fast as it
seems, and yes we do consider filed claims as well as claims settled
or adjudicated. A high number of claims - no matter what the
surgeon's volume - does require us to investigate further. We have
the authority to not certify or to decertify any applicant, even if
the exact 1 in 500 ratio is not met.

Keep in mind that there are surgeons who have provided more than
10,000 refractive surgeries without even a single claim, let alone
successful malpractice suit. Someone with 26 claims is going to set
off all sorts of bells around here no matter how many surgeries s/he
has performed.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Rebecca

2004-10-22, 7:08 am

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<l8cgn0h26qmod4gnhtnelks5hs4q8bdadm@4ax.com>...

> Keep in mind that there are surgeons who have provided more than
> 10,000 refractive surgeries without even a single claim, let alone
> successful malpractice suit. Someone with 26 claims is going to set
> off all sorts of bells around here no matter how many surgeries s/he
> has performed.

I was told earlier this year by an attorney representing some of the
patients that there were 26 pending claims that he knew of.

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

I think the malpractice issue is a very unreliable method of
evaluating. It should only be one factor among many.
Frankly, most "malpractice" goes unreported or is settled out of court
and involves relatively small amounts of money.
Some states have laws which make it just about impossible to win a
malpractice case. On the other hand, some states are filled with
nutballs that sue people for a hobby. Also, I'm not so sure it's
fair to count the claims, although that is more realistic than
counting the cases lost or won.
This is more of an issue for the field of medicine as a whole. The
LASIK procedure is indisputably the safest, most predictable, most
performed surgery ever devised. Even lousy doctors get great results
almost every time. Now watch the malcontents start disputing that.

Setting off bells is one thing, hitting the gong of rejection is
another. Just as an example. The doctor who got his medical license
pulled for tax and fraud issues is an excellent doctor as far as his
skills and equipment go. He might have some ethics problems though..
and maybe a temper.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:02:38 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>The 1 successful malpractice case in 500 is not as hard and fast as it
>seems, and yes we do consider filed claims as well as claims settled
>or adjudicated. A high number of claims - no matter what the
>surgeon's volume - does require us to investigate further. We have
>the authority to not certify or to decertify any applicant, even if
>the exact 1 in 500 ratio is not met.
>
>Keep in mind that there are surgeons who have provided more than
>10,000 refractive surgeries without even a single claim, let alone
>successful malpractice suit. Someone with 26 claims is going to set
>off all sorts of bells around here no matter how many surgeries s/he
>has performed.
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

On 22 Oct 2004 04:19:33 -0700, rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org (Rebecca)
wrote:

>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<l8cgn0h26qmod4gnhtnelks5hs4q8bdadm@4ax.com>...
>
>
>I was told earlier this year by an attorney representing some of the
>patients that there were 26 pending claims that he knew of.

I don't know if this is getting off your topic, but numbers alone
don't tell the whole story. For instance, discount Lasik provider LVI
re-uses their one time use microkeratome blades that cost $60 each on
all their patients during their day. They has one bad day last year
in which about 20 people in one day got eye infections following their
procedure. While none of those infections had long-term consequences,
it caused those people considerable pain. In that case, they all got
together and filed a class-action suit, but they could have
individually filed 20 seperate malpractice suits.
As an interesting addendum to this story, the case was initially being
handled by Larry Beltz of Belts & Ruth. He guaranteed that he would
go after LVI and force them to do this and that. When he found out
that he wasn't going to be able to make big money out of it, he backed
away from that case like a kid would back away from a dinner of liver
with lima beans. Larry's sole motivating factor is money. And people
sometimes wonder why lawyers are hated so much.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

>
>I was told earlier this year by an attorney representing some of the
>patients that there were 26 pending claims that he knew of.

This is not the information we have. Have this attorney contact me as
soon as possible.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

For the most part, you evaluation and opinion is consistent with ours.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Rebecca

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<crqhn05ss35emlin35hja9hs6rde7v6e1a@4ax.com>...
> I think the malpractice issue is a very unreliable method of
> evaluating.

Patients have the right to judge for themselves.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-23, 11:10 am

The last I looked, nobody was making public records private.
Patients have the information available if they care to look.
Malpractice is one of our 50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor
(http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/tough_questions.htm) and is one of the
many issues we evaluate when we consider providing and/or maintaining
refractive surgeon certification.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Ragnar Suomi

2004-10-23, 11:10 am

On 22 Oct 2004 16:52:39 -0700, rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org (Rebecca)
wrote:

>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<crqhn05ss35emlin35hja9hs6rde7v6e1a@4ax.com>...
>
>Patients have the right to judge for themselves.

Sure they do, but judge based upon what information? The malpractice
claims offer little or no information. Here's just a few things to
consider:

-was the person filing a complaint a malcontent even before they had
their surgery? Some people can never be satisfied. Patients need
to know that the goal is to improve their vision dramatically, not
make it perfect. There is no such thing as perfect vision. Even the
Hubble Telescope wears "glasses" to compensate for a defect.

-is the malpractice suit related to something that is relevant to a
prospective patient? or is it some problem with taxes or other money
issues?

-is the complaint from a credible person, or from some nut that has
filed a dozen malpractice suits in the past

Really, the malpractice issue is pretty useless - which is
unfortunate. I looked up quite a few doctor's malpractice records and
found some interesting results. For instance, a certain father/son
pair of surgeons specialize in performing cataract surgery. They do
an incredible number of surgeries. They also have the highest number
of malpractice suits against them. Should a patient feel better
about going to a surgeon who has done 100,000 procedures and had 10
malpractice suits, or should they feel better about going to a surgeon
who has done 1,000 procedures and had 5 malpractice suits?

For good or bad, malpractice information is nearly impossible to get.
Many of the websites that used to carry this information don't carry
it anymore, or want you to pay $15 for each inquiry.

2004-10-23, 11:10 am

In article <uspkn0hkpeqstrvip7bb0oh2euvdddbbto@4ax.com>,
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

> The last I looked, nobody was making public records private.
> Patients have the information available if they care to look.
> Malpractice is one of our 50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor
> (http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/tough_questions.htm) and is one of the
> many issues we evaluate when we consider providing and/or maintaining
> refractive surgeon certification.

Following the 50 tough questions is what gave me the courage to ask my
surgeon about his pending malpractice suits. The answer he gave me and
how he handled the whole issue was one of the reasons why I ended up
choosing him in the end. There are 2 sides to every malpractice suit,
and I was very impressed with how he regarded them and the patients who
were bringing suits against him. IMO, it's a very important topic to
bring up when you are interviewing a doctor to perform any elective
surgery procedure.

2004-10-23, 11:10 am

In article <p6ekn0ti637jun7if8nejmso3reot6oggd@4ax.com>,
Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:

> For good or bad, malpractice information is nearly impossible to get.
> Many of the websites that used to carry this information don't carry
> it anymore, or want you to pay $15 for each inquiry.

Lasikinfocenter.net was good for learning that there are malpractice
suits against certain LASIK surgeons. How accurate and up to date is
that list I wonder?

old dog no tricks

2004-10-23, 7:10 pm

> > Hey Folks,
I am not looking to get involved with all the discussions flowing on
this group, however I have 14 years experience assisting with
refractive surgery, Cryolathing,RK.AK.MKM.HKM,ALK.PRK Lasik. Certified
in B&L, Autonomous,S-4 and back to the Tauton 20/20 (anyone remember
that)I now am employed by LVI and have to object to the blade reuse
LIE. Over the last twelve months I have worked at several midwest LVI
centers and our surgical team HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER do anything to
compromise any patients surgical procedure.I cannont speak for
locations or teams that I have not worked with. Nor will I get
involved with discussions about situations that I do not have direct
absolute knowledge about. And that is all I have to add to this group.
> I don't know if this is getting off your topic, but numbers alone
> don't tell the whole story. For instance, discount Lasik provider LVI
> re-uses their one time use microkeratome blades that cost $60 each on
> all their patients during their day.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-23, 7:10 pm

>
>Lasikinfocenter.net was good for learning that there are malpractice
>suits against certain LASIK surgeons. How accurate and up to date is
>that list I wonder?

You will find documents of the initial claims, but not the final
finding, even when the owner of the website has direct knowledge of
how the case was finally resolved. You can draw your own conclusions
why this would be done.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-23, 7:10 pm

I'm delighted our 50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor were helpful for
you. 8^)

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Sandy

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<p6ekn0ti637jun7if8nejmso3reot6oggd@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Oct 2004 16:52:39 -0700, rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org (Rebecca)
> wrote:
>
>
> Sure they do, but judge based upon what information? The malpractice
> claims offer little or no information. Here's just a few things to
> consider:

Claims indicate that a patient was unhappy with the
care/responsiveness of the sugeon involved, and that there has been a
breakdown in the relationship, which may have started off very
congenial, even in the face of complications. I was not angry with my
surgeon until I knew for a fact that he'd been lying to me, and he
made the comment, "Bummer, huh?". There are many, many patients
who've had complications, and their surgeons cared and did their best
to resolve the situation, or referred them for further care elsewhere.
When patients are treated right, they don't get angry and are less
likely to sue.

> -was the person filing a complaint a malcontent even before they had
> their surgery? Some people can never be satisfied. Patients need
> to know that the goal is to improve their vision dramatically, not
> make it perfect. There is no such thing as perfect vision. Even the
> Hubble Telescope wears "glasses" to compensate for a defect.

I don't know of any attorneys who'd be willing to take on contingency
a case of someone who simply has to wear glasses post-LASIK.

> -is the malpractice suit related to something that is relevant to a
> prospective patient? or is it some problem with taxes or other money
> issues?

Malpractice suits have nothing to do with finances.

> -is the complaint from a credible person, or from some nut that has
> filed a dozen malpractice suits in the past
>
> Really, the malpractice issue is pretty useless - which is
> unfortunate. I looked up quite a few doctor's malpractice records and
> found some interesting results. For instance, a certain father/son
> pair of surgeons specialize in performing cataract surgery. They do
> an incredible number of surgeries. They also have the highest number
> of malpractice suits against them. Should a patient feel better
> about going to a surgeon who has done 100,000 procedures and had 10
> malpractice suits, or should they feel better about going to a surgeon
> who has done 1,000 procedures and had 5 malpractice suits?
>
> For good or bad, malpractice information is nearly impossible to get.
> Many of the websites that used to carry this information don't carry
> it anymore, or want you to pay $15 for each inquiry.

Consider that a doctor who has cases filed against him has likely got
some extremely unhappy patients, and that they've been able to find an
attorney who is willing to spend some big bucks filing a lawsuit,
because they believe that the case has merit. It is very, very
difficult to find an attorney who will get involved and make a large
financial investment in a lasik case that doesn't exhibit blatant
malpractice, because for one thing, these are not cases that make
attorneys rich. It costs between $50,000-100,000 just for expert
witnesses (engineers, etc.) to bring a product liability case. The
most successful attorneys prefer brain-damaged babies and wrongful
death suits--that's where the money is. If the case isn't worth at
least a million dollars, good luck finding an attorney to take it.

Christopher, you really try to trivialize the malpractice cases that
are out there, and you do not understand them at all.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-24, 4:07 am

>Malpractice suits have nothing to do with finances.

Says the woman who received about a quarter of a million dollars for
her malpractice claim.

Sandy

2004-10-24, 11:07 am

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<1domn0hmv0jb89e912i9en9eml8gga8jp7@4ax.com>...
>
> Says the woman who received about a quarter of a million dollars for
> her malpractice claim.

Are you kidding, Glenn, or do you really need clarification here?

Malpractice suits have nothing to do with the DOCTOR's finances, tax
evasion schemes, etc. I don't think Christopher had a problem
understanding this.

Ragnar Suomi

2004-10-24, 11:07 am

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:03:47 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>
>
>Says the woman who received about a quarter of a million dollars for
>her malpractice claim.

You got that right Glenn.. And thanks to her, since she settled for
the money and never pursued the case in court, that surgeon escaped
any findings of wrongdoing and is free to continue to operate on other
patients. Those patients might not have gone to a surgeon who had
lost a malpractice suit.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-24, 7:12 pm

Hmmmm. So you are saying that by taking the money and running, Keller
in actuality put potential refractive surgery patients at risk because
the information about her outcome is not in the court records, only on
her website that is seen only by a very small portion of LASIK
candidates.

Interesting theory. Perhaps that explains why it so often appears
that Keller is overcompensating for something.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Rebecca

2004-10-24, 7:12 pm

sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote in message news:<1f704412.0410231903.69099b02@posting.google.com>...

> Claims indicate that a patient was unhappy with the
> care/responsiveness of the sugeon involved, and that there has been a
> breakdown in the relationship, which may have started off very
> congenial, even in the face of complications.

I think most people in healthcare would agree that a breakdown in the
doctor-patient relationship after a life-altering complication, and
particularly failure by the physician to acknowledge the impact on the
patient's life and loss of trust by the patient that the physician is
doing his/her best to help, would greatly increase the probability of
a lawsuit.

Rebecca

2004-10-24, 7:12 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<5lvin093thiujc109kk4j0oto0el52vfqt@4ax.com>...
>
>
> This is not the information we have. Have this attorney contact me as
> soon as possible.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.

Glenn,

I have sent you an email with his name and email address.

Rebecca

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-24, 7:12 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:9sknn0hgkvsmvr5lf17ek7ofhk8kovr2sg@4ax.com:

> Hmmmm. So you are saying that by taking the money and running, Keller
> in actuality put potential refractive surgery patients at risk because
> the information about her outcome is not in the court records, only on
> her website that is seen only by a very small portion of LASIK
> candidates.
>
> Interesting theory. Perhaps that explains why it so often appears
> that Keller is overcompensating for something.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.

Glenn,

Are you really going to stoop as low as to respond to Ragnar?
Are you two really in cahoots as many people suspect?

DrG

Ragnar Suomi

2004-10-24, 7:12 pm

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:04:13 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
>news:9sknn0hgkvsmvr5lf17ek7ofhk8kovr2sg@4ax.com:
>
>
>Glenn,
>
>Are you really going to stoop as low as to respond to Ragnar?
>Are you two really in cahoots as many people suspect?
>
>DrG

Glenn must have the record for getting stabbed in the back. He tried
showing sympathy on some of the malcontents and they repaid him by
going to great lengths to attack him.

I'm not crazy about some of Glenn's ideas, but as far as this
newsgroup goes, he's one of very few people who's messages have any
value.

Today you are sounding like you are trying to stir up a conspiracy
with your talf of "cahoots as many people suspect". What a nut. Why
don't you come up with something real, such as Rebecca slipping and
revealing that Scientist on LME is not "Broken Eyes" but is in fact
Ron Link's girlfiend Paula Cofer?

The Sabowtage

2004-10-25, 7:11 pm

Is there any additional information regarding litigation against Dello
Russo? Are they against him? One of the sons? Others in the practice?
Any former patients care to weigh in?

I would expect someone with such a large operation to have a larger
number of malpractice suits. I also don't mind seeing them settled, as
it is usually cheaper for the surgeon than litigating.

I would like to know whether these cases call into question the ability
of him and his practice to provide care.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-25, 7:11 pm

Thanks. I'll follow-up.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-25, 7:11 pm

Perhaps I am a bit subtle. Perhaps my attempts to steer an issue in a
different direction misses its target, but even in piles of errata one
may find a piece of good information.

The legitimate question is if more people would have the relevant
information if a patient takes a malpractice case all the way through
the courts and does not settle. That is an interesting conundrum.

If the issue is not about money, as was alleged earlier, then settling
makes no sense. Of course, litigation is seldom that simple. There
is always the possibility of losing even if the case is valid. There
is the very real emotional turmoil of litigation. For that period of
time, it seems your life revolves around lawyers...not a grand
thought.

Keller may have settled so the courts do not have documentation of
exactly who did what to whom, and one cannot underestimate her efforts
with her website, but the somewhat rhetorical question is if the
public would have been better served with the court disclosure than
with an Internet disclosure. My suggestion is that the court
documents would show point and counterpoint, be less inclined to
represent unbridled hyperbole, and would be the most obvious place
where someone would research a doctor's malpractice history.

BTW, I spend a lot of time this morning with Ophtonix discussing the
wavefront contact lenses. I'll try to get something published on my
research soon.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-25, 7:11 pm

>
>I think most people in healthcare would agree that a breakdown in the
>doctor-patient relationship after a life-altering complication, and
>particularly failure by the physician to acknowledge the impact on the
>patient's life and loss of trust by the patient that the physician is
>doing his/her best to help, would greatly increase the probability of
>a lawsuit.

Nicely said.

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-25, 7:11 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:5bkqn01kcp77llltq6o2ni16rdukfqu20d@4ax.com:

Just joking, Glenn.

>
> BTW, I spend a lot of time this morning with Ophtonix discussing the
> wavefront contact lenses. I'll try to get something published on my
> research soon.
>
Look forward to hearing about it.

DrG