Lasik Eyes Surgery - Optomtrist in Hotwater and CRSQA-Extreme Makeover Surgeon lawsuit performed non FDA pr

Author

Optomtrist in Hotwater and CRSQA-Extreme Makeover Surgeon lawsuit performed non FDA pr

TheTruthAboutLASIK

2005-01-27, 8:52 am

Press Release 1

"January 13, 2005 Los Angeles, California -- Trial has been set for
late January in the case of a California optometrist, James H. Hawley,
previously accused of fraud and mismanagement of the patient's care in
a malpractice case filed in September, 2000. LASIK patient Sandra J.
Keller has been called to testify in the State Attorney General's case
against her former eye care provider. The prosecution is seeking
revocation of the doctor's license in this case. Reportedly, the
optometrist referred Ms. Keller, a poor candidate with
contraindications to the surgery, to the Torrance Pacific Laser Eye
Center in which he holds a financial stake. A malpractice settlement
was agreed to in September, 2001. Officials at the California State
Optometry Board have been unavailable for comment."

Press Release 2
CRSQA Extreme Makeover LASIK Surgeon Dr. Robert Maloney lawsuit
http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000084.html

Trial Set for TV's "Extreme Makeover" LASIK Surgeon

Los Angeles, January 5, 2005 - Robert Maloney, MD, well known for his
role on ABC's successful "Extreme Makeover," will be the subject
of a jury trial set for April 6, 2005 in Los Angeles Superior Court,
Santa Monica, CA. In a civil suit, Maloney has been charged by one of
his LASIK patients with negligence, battery, and fraud. The case will
be heard in the Los Angeles Superior Court at Santa Monica.

The case stems from injuries inflicted on Judy Chang, a patient of Dr.
Maloney's, in 2000. Chang alleges that Maloney performed a non-FDA
approved LASIK procedure for vision correction without her knowledge
and consent. Not only did Chang suffer permanent vision loss but
metallic debris were embedded in her eyes as a result of the
procedure.

Chang alleges that Maloney and his staff knowingly concealed that the
LASIK procedure performed was non-FDA approved despite the fact that
she was given assurances that it was FDA approved.

A detailed cause of action can be obtained from the LA County Clerks
office.

LASIK vision correction surgery, much like the recently prescription
drugs Vioxx and Celebrex, became a bestseller on the strength of
advertising aimed directly at consumers. Similarly, the LASIK patient
"informed consent" has become a hot bed for litigation due to
omissions and bait-and-switch tactics. An extensive backgrounder on
refractive surgery, in particular, the informed consent and LASIK
surgery, can be found at
http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000011.html

Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com

2005-01-27, 8:52 am

Is there a link to the original publication of these?

Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com

2005-02-01, 2:46 pm

Well, the trial in the first case has been postponed until May 2005.
It seems that 5 1/2 years has not been enough time to pull together a
good defense.

serebel

2005-02-01, 2:46 pm

Hey, Sandy,

it seems that 5 1/2 years is not enough time to put together a
prosecution.

SErebel

Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com

2005-02-01, 2:47 pm

Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com wrote:
> Well, the trial in the first case has been postponed until May 2005.
> It seems that 5 1/2 years has not been enough time to pull together a
> good defense.

Turns out that this case has been at a standstill since the fall of
2003 due to California's lack of money. Prior to that, my attorneys
were not cooperative in sending the records of my malpractice case to
the Attorney General's office. They refused to make copies of the more
than 70 pounds of papers, but they finally shipped everything and
someone else got to make the copies. They probably shipped it freight
collect. LOL! After all that, the defense has asked for more time to
prepare. I wonder if they are that same dream team who forgot to write
a gag order into the settlement agreement.