Lasik Eyes Surgery - Indiana LASIK Patient Suing for Malpractice 3 Years Post-Op

Author

Indiana LASIK Patient Suing for Malpractice 3 Years Post-Op

sandykeller01@aol.com

2006-01-01, 6:04 pm

Posted on Sat, Dec. 31, 2005

Delayed malpractice claim OK'd

High court lets Wabash man sue 3 years after Lasik

By Niki Kelly

The Journal Gazette

INDIANAPOLIS - The Indiana Supreme Court ruled Friday that a
northeast Indiana man can move forward with a medical malpractice
lawsuit alleging Lasik eye surgery left him nearly blind in one eye.

In 2001, L. Thomas Booth sued Dr. Robert G. Wiley, Dr. Ronald Norlund
and Midwest Eye Consultants in Wabash, but an Allen Superior Court
trial judge found the man had not filed within the statute of
limitations and dismissed the case.

The crux of the legal argument is when Booth should have known enough
to suspect that a Lasik eye surgery first performed in November 1998
might have contributed to severe impairment in his right eye.

Wiley performed the laser surgery on Booth at that time and again in
February 1999 based on a referral from Norlund. According to court
records, Norlund suggested the surgery despite Booth's history of
glaucoma and cataracts.

After the Lasik surgery, Booth underwent several other eye operations
in relation to his cataracts.

Under law, Booth had two years from the date of the original surgery or
until November 2000 to claim malpractice.

But Booth's attorneys argued he didn't understand there was a
connection between his worsening eyesight and the Lasik surgeries until
after that period lapsed.

It wasn't until December 2000 that another doctor told Booth that
Lasik surgery should not have been performed because of his
pre-existing conditions and might have complicated his cataracts. After
this assessment, Booth sued in July 2001.

The Indiana Supreme Court - in a split 3-2 decision - found the
evidence does not "indisputably establish that Mr. Booth discovered
the malpractice and resulting injury, or acquired knowledge sufficient
to lead a reasonably diligent person to discover the malpractice and
resulting injury, until Dec. 4, 2000."

Therefore, he is allowed to pursue his claim in court.

The ruling noted that in this case an expert's advice put the patient
on notice of possible malpractice but isn't required in every case.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard issued a dissent in the
case in which he accused his colleagues of stretching the bounds of
Indiana law on medical malpractice.

He said it "takes us light years away" from previous precedent and
"turns the medical malpractice statute of limitations into a very
liberal rule without so much as a word about why the Indiana
Constitution requires the result."

He also noted the ruling was remarkable given that in Booth's case
the claim centers "on an operation whose results were a disaster
virtually from the day it occurred."

Marshall Cosme

2006-01-09, 1:02 am

http://www.321recipes.com/aspartame.html
This is a must read on eye health and maintainance. You may or may not be
affected , but you might be shocked!
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.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<sandykeller01@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136146950.860527.290530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Posted on Sat, Dec. 31, 2005
>
> Delayed malpractice claim OK'd
>
> High court lets Wabash man sue 3 years after Lasik
>
> By Niki Kelly
>
> The Journal Gazette
>
> INDIANAPOLIS - The Indiana Supreme Court ruled Friday that a
> northeast Indiana man can move forward with a medical malpractice
> lawsuit alleging Lasik eye surgery left him nearly blind in one eye.
>
> In 2001, L. Thomas Booth sued Dr. Robert G. Wiley, Dr. Ronald Norlund
> and Midwest Eye Consultants in Wabash, but an Allen Superior Court
> trial judge found the man had not filed within the statute of
> limitations and dismissed the case.
>
> The crux of the legal argument is when Booth should have known enough
> to suspect that a Lasik eye surgery first performed in November 1998
> might have contributed to severe impairment in his right eye.
>
> Wiley performed the laser surgery on Booth at that time and again in
> February 1999 based on a referral from Norlund. According to court
> records, Norlund suggested the surgery despite Booth's history of
> glaucoma and cataracts.
>
> After the Lasik surgery, Booth underwent several other eye operations
> in relation to his cataracts.
>
> Under law, Booth had two years from the date of the original surgery or
> until November 2000 to claim malpractice.
>
> But Booth's attorneys argued he didn't understand there was a
> connection between his worsening eyesight and the Lasik surgeries until
> after that period lapsed.
>
> It wasn't until December 2000 that another doctor told Booth that
> Lasik surgery should not have been performed because of his
> pre-existing conditions and might have complicated his cataracts. After
> this assessment, Booth sued in July 2001.
>
> The Indiana Supreme Court - in a split 3-2 decision - found the
> evidence does not "indisputably establish that Mr. Booth discovered
> the malpractice and resulting injury, or acquired knowledge sufficient
> to lead a reasonably diligent person to discover the malpractice and
> resulting injury, until Dec. 4, 2000."
>
> Therefore, he is allowed to pursue his claim in court.
>
> The ruling noted that in this case an expert's advice put the patient
> on notice of possible malpractice but isn't required in every case.
>
> Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard issued a dissent in the
> case in which he accused his colleagues of stretching the bounds of
> Indiana law on medical malpractice.
>
> He said it "takes us light years away" from previous precedent and
> "turns the medical malpractice statute of limitations into a very
> liberal rule without so much as a word about why the Indiana
> Constitution requires the result."
>
> He also noted the ruling was remarkable given that in Booth's case
> the claim centers "on an operation whose results were a disaster
> virtually from the day it occurred."
>