|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > January 2006 > Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com False Accuses Robert Maloney, MD of causing patient dam
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com False Accuses Robert Maloney, MD of causing patient dam
|
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-27, 1:04 am |
| As very well document and acknowledged by Kathy Griffin, the reason
she had a problem with epithelial ingrowth
(http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/ingrowth.htm) is because she
refused to respond to Dr. Maloney's repeated requests for her to
return to the office for treatment.
Griffin did seek the care of CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon Kerry
Assil, MD for treatment of her epithelial ingrowth, and is recovering.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-12-27, 10:58 am |
| Should you care to read Griffin's own site, she acknowledges that
Maloney never actually did anything wrong, and that she had secondary
surgery for monovision as she is simply vain.
Epi ingrowth is a post-surgical complication that can't be ascertained
in the surgical process, is treatable, but those who get it can be
prone to regrowth as it is hard to remove all tissue.
As usual, Hanson is blasting away at someone who didn't actually do
anything wrong, but his track record is proof positive of this.
dr grant
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2005-12-27, 12:54 pm |
| Glenn Hagele is claiming that Dr. Kerry Asil can fix the host of
problems caused by CRSQA "certified" surgeon, Dr. Robert Maloney.
Is that correct? Let's see what Kathy has to say about all of this.
=======================
http://www.kathygriffin.net/lasik.php
After four eye surgeries by Dr. Maloney, the last being a failed
attempt to correct the serious damage following from the previous
surgeries, Ms. Griffin consulted legal counsel. Ms. Griffin's
attorney gave written notice to Dr. Maloney of the claims arising out
of her eye injury and stated that if she proceeds to litigation, the
amount of her claim, while not presently determined, would be at least
$250,000.00 in general damages (the statutory limit in California) plus
medical expenses and loss of income. No specific amount was demanded
of Dr. Maloney. The attorney's letter concluded by commenting on the
obvious inevitability of media attention for both parties in the event
of a lawsuit.
After Maloney received this letter, he left Kathy a voice mail asking
to meet with Kathy to "settle this thing without getting the lawyers
involved." Kathy agreed to meet with Dr. Maloney at a neutral
location. During that meeting, Dr. Maloney discussed paying Kathy some
money and sending her to Minneapolis to have another surgeon operate on
her eye. He also told Kathy that if the case ever reached court, the
resulting media attention would be good for his business and that
Kathy's name would be dragged through the mud. He mentioned that he
would have no choice but to bring up whatever dirt he could find on
Kathy including details of her sex life. Finally, when Kathy asked why
this condition had happened to her, Dr. Maloney gave a terse two word
response, "Bad Luck." After that, Kathy decided against a
financial settlement because she would undoubtedly be asked to sign a
confidentiality agreement. She realized that it would be more useful
and rewarding to alert the public about the risks of laser eye surgery.
Kathy has not filed a lawsuit against Dr. Maloney and she is not
planning to. She is, however, spending tens of thousands of dollars to
educate the public about the side effects of lasik surgery.
Statement #2: "The procedure to cure epithelial cell ingrowth is a
painless 10 minute procedure"
Kathy recently underwent a 90 minute operation that left her with 17
stitches in her eyeball. Kathy was put under by an anesthesiologist
during the operation and it was performed in an operating room. Even
though the surgery initially appears to be a success, there is still a
great deal of concern that these cells could return. According to Dr.
David Hardten, a prominent lasik surgeon, "The recurrence rate can be
as high as 60 percent."
Statement #3: "Epithelial cell ingrowth occurs in less than one
percent of lasik patients"
No study has been cited to support Dr. Maloney's assertion.
According to the September 2001 Review of Ophthalmology, "The
clinically SIGNIFICANT, unwanted growth of corneal epithelial cells in
the lasik interface occurs in about 1-2 percent of cases." In order
to be considered significant, the ingrowth needs to be blocking vision,
causing stromal melt, or progressing so rapidly that one of these two
occurrences is soon to occur. Obviously, if the rate for severe
ingrowth is between one and two percent, the rate for all ingrowth is
higher than 2 percent. Even if it were as low as 2%, that would mean
in a population of 10 million patients, 200,000 people would suffer
with this condition.
Statement #4: "Kathy disregarded Dr. Maloney's advice to get this
injury treated"
Dr. Maloney performed the 3rd lasik procedure, WaveFront, on Kathy on
6/24/03. This procedure failed to improve Kathy's vision and for the
first time she developed Epithelial Cell Ingrowth. Dr. Maloney
performed surgery #4 on Kathy's right eye on 7/3/03 for the purpose
of removing the cell ingrowth. It wasn't until a checkup a few
months later that Dr. Maloney told Kathy the Epithelial Cells had
returned yet again. After four eye surgeries and countless visits to
Dr. Maloney's office, Kathy lost confidence in Dr. Maloney's
abilities and assurances. She began to seek opinions from other
doctors. She saw no reason to keep Dr. Maloney informed of her visits
to those other doctors. It became increasingly apparent that there are
many different views on how to treat this injury in the lasik
community.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-27, 12:54 pm |
| In addition to keeping up with all the fake names you use on the
Internet Hanson, you need to keep up with all your reposting. I've
already responded to this in another thread. Since you seem to be
having some geography trouble today, I'll repost here:
~~~~~~~~~~
On 27 Dec 2005 04:46:38 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>According to Glenn Hagele, Dr. Kerry Assil is capable of repairing
>damage caused by Dr. Robert Maloney.
>
>Is that correct?
ROFLOL. It looks like Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com is running around
in circles. Now he is casting wild innuendo toward Robert Maloney, MD.
To answer Hanson's ridiculous "question": Both Drs. Kerry Assil and
Robert Maloney are CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeons who have
demonstrated that their outcomes are within the national norm. Both
have been published in peer reviewed medical literature. Both have
made multiple presentations at multiple medical conferences. Both have
the ability to care for patients suffering from complications. Both
care for patients who have suffered complications.
So Hanson, what is going to be your next attempt to catch your own
tail?
~~~~~~~~~~
I guess this post in a second thread about the same subject answered
my last question.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
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 wrote:
> As very well document and acknowledged by Kathy Griffin, the reason
> she had a problem with epithelial ingrowth
> (http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/ingrowth.htm) is because she
> refused to respond to Dr. Maloney's repeated requests for her to
> return to the office for treatment.
>
> Griffin did seek the care of CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon Kerry
> Assil, MD for treatment of her epithelial ingrowth, and is recovering.
>
> Glenn Hagele
Why was she afraid to return to Dr. Maloney, Glenn?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-30, 1:07 am |
|
>Why was she afraid to return to Dr. Maloney, Glenn?
I don't see anywhere where Kathy Griffin ever said she was afraid of
Dr. Maloney.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Sandy 2005-12-30, 11:01 am |
| Oh, Glenn, you are so right!
Here is what is on Kathy's website:
"After four eye surgeries and countless visits to Dr. Maloney=92s office,
Kathy lost confidence in Dr. Maloney=92s abilities and assurances."
I'll rephrase my question for you now. Why was Kathy afraid to have
Dr. Maloney perform operation #5 on her eye?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-30, 11:01 am |
| On 30 Dec 2005 00:27:51 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Oh, Glenn, you are so right!
>
>Here is what is on Kathy's website:
>
>"After four eye surgeries and countless visits to Dr. Maloney? office,
>Kathy lost confidence in Dr. Maloney? abilities and assurances."
>
>I'll rephrase my question for you now. Why was Kathy afraid to have
>Dr. Maloney perform operation #5 on her eye?
If a patient has a problem that requires five surgeries, then the
fifth surgery needs to be done.
Griffin has stated that she lost confidence in her doctor. That
happens, but there are many other good surgeons in Los Angeles where
Griffin could go if she no longer wanted to receive care from Dr.
Maloney.
Unfortunately Griffin did not respond to her doctor's attempts to get
her back into the office for treatment of a progressive problem, and
she waited too long to seek care elsewhere. Damage was caused by this
delay of treatment. Eventually, she did receive care from Dr. Assil,
who also happens to be a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon.
I still don't see where Griffin indicated any fear of Dr. Maloney
whatsoever.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Sandy 2005-12-30, 11:01 am |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2005 00:27:51 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>
> If a patient has a problem that requires five surgeries, then the
> fifth surgery needs to be done.
>
> Griffin has stated that she lost confidence in her doctor. That
> happens, but there are many other good surgeons in Los Angeles where
> Griffin could go if she no longer wanted to receive care from Dr.
> Maloney.
>
> Unfortunately Griffin did not respond to her doctor's attempts to get
> her back into the office for treatment of a progressive problem, and
> she waited too long to seek care elsewhere. Damage was caused by this
> delay of treatment. Eventually, she did receive care from Dr. Assil,
> who also happens to be a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon.
Glenn, didn't you post the following?:
Re: Entertainer Kathy Griffin's LASIK Nightmare
"I have no doubt that Ms. Griffin is upset at having epithelial
ingrowth, but her reported prognosis is so dire as to wonder what on
earth she is going on about.
Epithelial ingrowth is possibly one of the most benign complications a
person can have after LASIK or IntraLASIK. For more details, visit
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/ingrowth.htm
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor."
Of course you did. It's right here:
http://www.pahealthsystems.com/message421516.html
This is a prime example of why a person would not want to place any
value on Glenn's medical advice or opinions. First he states that
ingrowth is benign, and now he states that it damaged Kathy's vision.
He obviously doesn't know what he is talking about and twists things to
fit his agenda at any given moment.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-30, 12:57 pm |
|
>Glenn, didn't you post the following?:
>
> Re: Entertainer Kathy Griffin's LASIK Nightmare
>"I have no doubt that Ms. Griffin is upset at having epithelial
>ingrowth, but her reported prognosis is so dire as to wonder what on
>earth she is going on about.
>
>Epithelial ingrowth is possibly one of the most benign complications a
>person can have after LASIK or IntraLASIK. For more details, visit
>http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/ingrowth.htm
>
>
>Of course you did. It's right here:
>
>http://www.pahealthsystems.com/message421516.html
If you know that I posted something, then why are you asking the
question?
>This is a prime example of why a person would not want to place any
>value on Glenn's medical advice or opinions. First he states that
>ingrowth is benign, and now he states that it damaged Kathy's vision.
>He obviously doesn't know what he is talking about and twists things to
>fit his agenda at any given moment.
I have not twisted anything. Keller's accusation is unfounded, mean
spirited, and an example of Keller's inability to simply acknowledge
the truth about this situation.
Epithelial ingrowth IS one of the most benign complications a person
can have after LASIK or IntraLASIK IF THE PATIENT DOES NOT DELAY
TREATMENT BY REFUSING TO RETURN TO HER DOCTOR'S OFFICE WHEN REQUESTED
MANY, MANY TIMES AND NOT SEEKING CARE ELSEWHERE UNTIL DAMAGE OCCURS.
When Griffin started making all the noise about epithelial ingrowth I
indeed was surprised of her reported prognosis because I could not
believe anyone would DELAY TREATMENT OF A VISION THREATENING PROBLEM
UNTIL DAMAGE OCCURS. A person in the contiguous care of knowledgeable
medical professionals and who is receiving appropriate treatment will
not suffer vision threatening damage from epithelial ingrowth. Someone
who refuses and delays treatment most certainly can, and Kathy Griffin
proved this.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| How would you know how many times or the intervals at which she was
contacted by Dr. Maloney or his office? Has she made a public
statement which conveyed this information?
| |
|
| You have admonished others for typing in caps and yelling. Shhhh!!!
| |
|
| In article <1135993075.454763.258500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
> How would you know how many times or the intervals at which she was
> contacted by Dr. Maloney or his office? Has she made a public
> statement which conveyed this information?
I am so completely baffled why anyone should care about this topic at
all. Really, WHO CARES?
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-31, 1:05 am |
| There are two reasons this has come up again and again in this forum.
1) Robert Maloney, MD is a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon
2) Robert Maloney is a target of Sandy Keller's ire.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
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 2006-01-01, 1:01 am |
| On 30 Dec 2005 17:37:55 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>How would you know how many times or the intervals at which she was
>contacted by Dr. Maloney or his office? Has she made a public
>statement which conveyed this information?
Kathy Griffin didn’t show for her scheduled 3 week follow-up visit
after surgery. Dr. Maloney personally called and left a message about
the importance of coming in. She didn’t come in. She finally showed
up 7 months later. Vision was still 20/20. Maloney diagnosed the
epithelial ingrowth and told her how important it was to fix it.
Maloney sent a follow-up letter later that week emphasizing the
importance of treating it and listing the names of some other
respected surgeons in the area where she could get a second opinion if
she doubted him. She didn’t seek treatment for more than a year after
Maloney sent the letter, nearly two years after the surgery. Before
finally getting treatment she sent Maloney a letter demanding a
quarter million dollars or she would “go public”. Maloney declined to
pay so she went public.
It is completely irresponsible of people like Brent Hanson, Sandy
Keller, or Kathy Griffin herself, to imply or outright state that
Griffin's eye problems were the fault of Dr. Maloney. Griffin delayed
treatment for a complication that is normally benign when treated
properly. It was the delay in treatment, not the care provided, that
caused damage to her vision.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| RT, I am quite concerned by Glenn Hagele's willingness to attack the
actions and character of Kathy Griffin when she has not participated in
this forum to answer to his accusations and bad-mouthing. After what
I've read today, I believe that HIPPA has been violated.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-01-02, 1:10 am |
| On 1 Jan 2006 17:32:29 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>RT, I am quite concerned by Glenn Hagele's willingness to attack the
>actions and character of Kathy Griffin when she has not participated in
>this forum to answer to his accusations and bad-mouthing.
ROFLMAO. Keller has no problem with attacking her optometrist,
ophthalmologist who did her surgery, Robert Maloney, MD, and a large
array of others who do not participate in this forum, but when I point
out factually that her latest "cause celeb" contributed to her own
problems, Keller suddenly becomes "concerned".
Stating facts fully and truthfully is not "bad-mouthing", Keller,
neither is it accusatory.
>After what
>I've read today, I believe that HIPPA has been violated.
What Keller believes and what is accurate can be two very different
things. Neither Robert Maloney nor I have not violated HIPPA.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2006-01-02, 1:10 am |
| No one really cares what you believe Keller. It also does not matter
what you believe .
| |
|
| I think that you are referring to HIPAA Glenn, while I am referring to
HIPPA.
Anyway, look at your last sentence. Alternatively, are you saying that
both of you have?? LOL!!!
| |
|
| In article <1136165549.531560.313320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
> RT, I am quite concerned by Glenn Hagele's willingness to attack the
> actions and character of Kathy Griffin when she has not participated in
> this forum to answer to his accusations and bad-mouthing. After what
> I've read today, I believe that HIPPA has been violated.
Why don't you invite her to participate in this NG. You are in contact
with her, aren't you?
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-01-02, 1:10 am |
| Have you nothing better to do Keller?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| Yeah, but I need to come here looking for laughs often because I am
easily bored.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-01-02, 11:03 am |
| I'll stop posting about Griffin here when I get the opportunitiy to go
on Oprah - like she did - to address the issue.
On 1 Jan 2006 17:32:29 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>RT, I am quite concerned by Glenn Hagele's willingness to attack the
>actions and character of Kathy Griffin when she has not participated in
>this forum to answer to his accusations and bad-mouthing. After what
>I've read today, I believe that HIPPA has been violated.
| |
|
| In article <1136185260.765799.130850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but I need to come here looking for laughs often because I am
> easily bored.
Me too!!!
--
~RT
| |
| Marshall Cosme 2006-01-09, 1:02 am |
| http://www.321recipes.com/aspartame.html
Please excuse the interruption , but I thought you may be interested to know
what may be causing all kinds of health problems for yourself or for your
loved ones. I can't seem to get it through to my wife's brain about this
vital health issue, Now she is always saying she is having trouble with her
vision. Gee, I wonder why? I am so pissed off right now, I really want to
slap some sense into her. She has been feeding this poison to my four
children for years after I asked her not too, so you can see why I said what
I said previously, but I would never hit my wife. Why are people ignore what
science brings to are attention about health issues. I am really upset, but
I hope this helps you....since I can't get through to my wife of 16
years.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com" <administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote in
message news:1135707073.228543.21390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Glenn Hagele is claiming that Dr. Kerry Asil can fix the host of
> problems caused by CRSQA "certified" surgeon, Dr. Robert Maloney.
>
> Is that correct? Let's see what Kathy has to say about all of this.
>
> =======================
> http://www.kathygriffin.net/lasik.php
>
> After four eye surgeries by Dr. Maloney, the last being a failed
> attempt to correct the serious damage following from the previous
> surgeries, Ms. Griffin consulted legal counsel. Ms. Griffin's
> attorney gave written notice to Dr. Maloney of the claims arising out
> of her eye injury and stated that if she proceeds to litigation, the
> amount of her claim, while not presently determined, would be at least
> $250,000.00 in general damages (the statutory limit in California) plus
> medical expenses and loss of income. No specific amount was demanded
> of Dr. Maloney. The attorney's letter concluded by commenting on the
> obvious inevitability of media attention for both parties in the event
> of a lawsuit.
>
> After Maloney received this letter, he left Kathy a voice mail asking
> to meet with Kathy to "settle this thing without getting the lawyers
> involved." Kathy agreed to meet with Dr. Maloney at a neutral
> location. During that meeting, Dr. Maloney discussed paying Kathy some
> money and sending her to Minneapolis to have another surgeon operate on
> her eye. He also told Kathy that if the case ever reached court, the
> resulting media attention would be good for his business and that
> Kathy's name would be dragged through the mud. He mentioned that he
> would have no choice but to bring up whatever dirt he could find on
> Kathy including details of her sex life. Finally, when Kathy asked why
> this condition had happened to her, Dr. Maloney gave a terse two word
> response, "Bad Luck." After that, Kathy decided against a
> financial settlement because she would undoubtedly be asked to sign a
> confidentiality agreement. She realized that it would be more useful
> and rewarding to alert the public about the risks of laser eye surgery.
> Kathy has not filed a lawsuit against Dr. Maloney and she is not
> planning to. She is, however, spending tens of thousands of dollars to
> educate the public about the side effects of lasik surgery.
>
> Statement #2: "The procedure to cure epithelial cell ingrowth is a
> painless 10 minute procedure"
>
> Kathy recently underwent a 90 minute operation that left her with 17
> stitches in her eyeball. Kathy was put under by an anesthesiologist
> during the operation and it was performed in an operating room. Even
> though the surgery initially appears to be a success, there is still a
> great deal of concern that these cells could return. According to Dr.
> David Hardten, a prominent lasik surgeon, "The recurrence rate can be
> as high as 60 percent."
>
> Statement #3: "Epithelial cell ingrowth occurs in less than one
> percent of lasik patients"
>
> No study has been cited to support Dr. Maloney's assertion.
> According to the September 2001 Review of Ophthalmology, "The
> clinically SIGNIFICANT, unwanted growth of corneal epithelial cells in
> the lasik interface occurs in about 1-2 percent of cases." In order
> to be considered significant, the ingrowth needs to be blocking vision,
> causing stromal melt, or progressing so rapidly that one of these two
> occurrences is soon to occur. Obviously, if the rate for severe
> ingrowth is between one and two percent, the rate for all ingrowth is
> higher than 2 percent. Even if it were as low as 2%, that would mean
> in a population of 10 million patients, 200,000 people would suffer
> with this condition.
>
> Statement #4: "Kathy disregarded Dr. Maloney's advice to get this
> injury treated"
>
> Dr. Maloney performed the 3rd lasik procedure, WaveFront, on Kathy on
> 6/24/03. This procedure failed to improve Kathy's vision and for the
> first time she developed Epithelial Cell Ingrowth. Dr. Maloney
> performed surgery #4 on Kathy's right eye on 7/3/03 for the purpose
> of removing the cell ingrowth. It wasn't until a checkup a few
> months later that Dr. Maloney told Kathy the Epithelial Cells had
> returned yet again. After four eye surgeries and countless visits to
> Dr. Maloney's office, Kathy lost confidence in Dr. Maloney's
> abilities and assurances. She began to seek opinions from other
> doctors. She saw no reason to keep Dr. Maloney informed of her visits
> to those other doctors. It became increasingly apparent that there are
> many different views on how to treat this injury in the lasik
> community.
>
|
| |
|
|