LASIK Blog
LASIK Surgery Rates Increased in 2010 Public Health Advisory on CNN Released about Dangers of LASIK The Wild, Wild West Of LASIK Informed Consent How Safe is LASIK? The Tiger Woods of Medical Procedures? THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND TIME BOMB OF POST LASIK ECTASIA FDA To Study LASIK Patient Satisfaction LASIK Regrets FDA Takes on LASIK Safety FDA panel meeting pushes LASIK practices into the limelight
Press Releases
Denver Jury Returns $440,000 Verdict Against 20/20 Institute
May 15th, 2013PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DENVER JURY RETURNS $440,000 VERDICT AGAINST 20/20 INSTITUTE
FOR LASIK BLUNDER
Scott Czarniak and Adrienne Czarniak v. 20/20 Institute, LLC
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 10 CV 03115
On Thursday, May 10, 2013, a jury in Denver, Colorado, returned a verdict of $440,000 against 20/20 Institute, LLC (“20/20 Institute”) for LASIK surgery negligence. On May 8, 2009, Plaintiff Scott Czarniak had surgery at 20/20 Institute where its laser technician, Jacquelyn Tallant, entered the wrong surgical treatment plan into the laser. The LASIK surgeon, Matthew K. Chang, M.D., failed to notice the technician’s mistake. Even after corrective surgery, the patient was left with a permanent partial visual disability due to problems with his quality of vision, including blur, glare, halos, diminished night vision, and loss of contrast sensitivity.
Plaintiffs Scott and Adrienne Czarniak resided in Avon, Colorado, at the time of the surgery.
Dr. Chang is an independent contractor, who performed LASIK surgery at 20/20 Institute one to two days per month, while maintaining his own practice at the Buckley-Chang Eye Institute, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. On the day of Mr. Czarniak’s surgery, Dr. Chang was scheduled to perform a total of 44 additional surgical procedures, on 23 additional patients.
20/20 Institute is the largest advertiser of LASIK services in Colorado, and boasts that it is the “official LASIK provider” to the Denver Broncos, Colorado Avalanche and Indianapolis Colts. Through its owner, Mark S. Danzo, O.D., 20/20 Institute denied responsibility for its technician’s mistake.
The jury apportioned fault 85% to the surgeon and 15% to 20/20 Institute.
Plaintiffs also brought a consumer fraud claim for alleged false advertising concerning 20/20 Institute’s claim to be the “official LASIK provider” to professional sports teams, even though Dr. Chang had operated on no professional athletes, and because the patient paid $1,200 for a “20/20 Lifetime Commitment” of no apparent benefit. The jury concluded that 20/20 Institute’s marketing and advertising did not violate the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiffs were represented by Todd J. Krouner and Diana M. Carlino, from the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner, in Chappaqua, New York, and Keith Cross of Cross & Bennett, LLC, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Defendants were represented by C. Gregory Tiemeier of Tiemeier & Stich, P.C., in Denver, Colorado, and J. Scott Lasater and Randy Sego of Lasater & Martin, P.C., in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.
The trial lasted 10 days in the United States District Court, in Denver, Colorado. The Honorable Richard P. Matsch presided.
read moreConsumer Fraud Claims Against 20/20 Institute, LLC, And Matthew K. Chang, M.D., Based On Allegedly False And Deceptive Advertising For LASIK Services Survive Motion For Summary Judgment
November 9th, 2012November 9, 2012
PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Scott Czarniak and Adrienne Czarniak v. 20/20 Institute, LLC and Matthew K. Chang, M.D.
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 10 CV 03115
On September 25, 2012, the Honorable Richard P. Matsch, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, held that Plaintiffs’ claims of consumer fraud may proceed to trial. The trial is set for April 29, 2013, in Denver, Colorado.
On March 2, 2011, Plaintiffs Scott Czarniak and Adrienne Czarniak, filed an amended complaint against the laser center, 20/20 Institute, LLC (“20/20 Institute”), and the LASIK surgeon, Matthew K. Chang, M.D. (“Dr. Chang”). The amended complaint alleges that Defendants permanently injured Mr. Czarniak when they entered the wrong numbers in the surgical laser. In addition to claims for medical malpractice, the complaint alleges damages arising from deceptive trade practices in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, C.R.S. § 6-1-101, et seq. (“CCPA”), fraud, and misrepresentation. This appears to be the first time the CCPA has been applied to a medical malpractice case. The CCPA provides for damages that are not typical in medical malpractice cases, including, triple damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
The amended complaint alleges that 20/20 Institute and Dr. Chang engaged in false and misleading advertising, including statements that:
1. expressly promise 20/20 uncorrected visual acuity;
2. implicitly promise perfect vision;
3. assert that they are the official LASIK provider for two professional sports teams, the Colorado Avalanche and Indianapolis Colts, and now, the Denver Broncos;
4. promise a lifetime of clear vision; and,
5. fail to disclose that they rely on a large volume of LASIK procedures to increase revenues and decrease costs.
In rejecting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the Court held that there were questions of material facts that needed to be determined by the jury. One such fact is whether 20/20 Institute’s advertisement as the “official LASIK provider” for the Colorado Avalanche and Indianapolis Colts, was deceptive or misleading. Judge Matsch opined that the jury’s decision will depend, in part, on whether or not they understand that the advertisement is based on a contract that 20/20 Institute has with the sports teams, and that the advertisement is not based on its treatment of any athletes.
Similarly, the Court rejected Dr. Chang’s arguments that he was not responsible for 20/20 Institute’s advertising, and that statements attributed to him were accurate, holding that Dr. Chang is “part of the business model here that is in issue in this case.”
Plaintiffs are represented by the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua, New York, and Keith Cross of Cross Bennett, LLC in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mr. Krouner represents victims of LASIK surgery throughout the United States. Mr. Cross has extensive experience in litigating medical malpractice actions, including LASIK malpractice.
A copy of the transcript of the September 24, 2012 Court hearing is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq., at (914) 238-5800, or Keith Cross, Esq., at (719) 633-1359.
read moreClaims of Excessive Force, Assault and Battery Against The New York City Police Department and County of Westchester Police Department Survive Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment
October 19th, 2012October 19, 2012
PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Frank De Michele v. City of New York, County of Westchester, et al.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Civil Action No.: 09-CV-9334
On September 24, 2012, Hon. Paul G. Gardephe, in the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York, held that there are “material issues of fact” concerning Plaintiff Frank DeMichele’s claims of excessive use of force, assault and battery, by officers employed by the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) and the Westchester County Department of Public Safety (“Westchester”). The trial against NYPD Deputy Inspector Timothy Bugge, NYPD Captain Deodat Urprasad, and Westchester Police Officers Brian P. Tierney, George O. Ruiz and Christian M. Gutierrez, is set for December 10, 2012.
On November 9, 2010, Mr. DeMichele filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that in a case of true mistaken identity, on January 18, 2009, police officers employed by the NYPD and Westchester, forcibly removed Mr. DeMichele from his home in the Bronx, and beat him. The complaint alleged that the police officers were acting under the erroneous belief that Mr. DeMichele had led them on a high-speed chase from Westchester County into the Bronx, assaulted a police officer by ramming his vehicle into the police officer’s vehicle, and robbed a civilian. In fact, the police officers were seeking Mr. DeMichele’s landlord’s son, who was hiding in Mr. DeMichele’s apartment.
The complaint alleged a cover-up by officers employed by defendants, including, the failure of a Westchester night vision video camera to record the arrest, the failure of a NYPD sergeant to record Mr. DeMichele’s injuries when he was brought to the 45th Precinct Station House, and the failure of that same sergeant to record the names and/or identities of emergency medical personnel who rendered medical treatment to Mr. DeMichele, while he was held there in police custody.
In deciding the motions for summary judgment, the Court held that “there are material issues of fact concerning both the extent to which Plaintiff resisted arrest and the degree of force that was used in effecting Plaintiff’s arrest.” Furthermore, the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss, even though Mr. DeMichele was not able to identify each of the officers who allegedly used force on him. The Court held that Deputy Inspector Bugge, and Westchester Police Officers Tierney, Ruiz and Gutierrez, may be liable for the excessive use of force, because they “were concededly all present when the alleged, repeated acts of abuse took place, they had an opportunity to intervene.” Finally, the Court denied the County of Westchester’s argument that its officers were entitled to qualified immunity, because “if, as [Mr. DeMichele] and other witnesses have testified, [Mr. DeMichele] was not resisting arrest but was nonetheless beaten, the officers could not have reasonably believed that their actions were lawful.”
The Court denied Plaintiff’s claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution, holding that Defendants had probable cause for the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is represented by Todd J. Krouner and Diana M. Carlino of the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua, New York. Mr. Krouner and Ms. Carlino represent victims who are subjected to civil rights violations, including false arrest and police brutality in New York.
A copy of the Court’s decision is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner or Diana M. Carlino at (914) 238-5800.
read moreFederal Judge Refuses To Dismiss Class Action Suit Against Cablevision For 2010 Blackout Of FOX Channels
March 31st, 2012March 30, 2012
PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Civil Action No.: 10 CV 49952 (JS) (AKT))
FEDERAL JUDGE REFUSES TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST CABLEVISION FOR 2010 BLACKOUT OF FOX CHANNELS
This week a Federal Court rejected the argument of cable television giant Cablevision Systems Corp. that the Fox television blackout of October 2010 was beyond its control. In a decision dated March 28 2012, United States District Court Judge Joanna Seybert denied the motion of Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Cablevision”) to dismiss a class action suit brought on behalf of Cablevision’s five million subscribers in the New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut broadcasting areas for a 2-week blackout of programming in October 2010.
Cablevision argued that the blackout of certain programming and networks owned by News Corporation, including WNYW (“Fox 5”), WWOR (“My9”), was the result of a failed contract negotiation with News Corp. Therefore, Cablevision claimed, the blackout was a “force majeure,” or beyond Cablevision’s control, and Cablevision should not be held accountable. The Court expressly rejected that argument: “The Court is largely receptive to Plaintiffs’ argument that a force majeure clause would not relieve Cablevision from having to refund a portion of Plaintiffs’ pre-paid subscription fees pursuant to Paragraph 4.” (Emphasis in original).
In refusing to dismiss the breach of contract claim, the Court looked to Paragraph 4 of Cablevision’s Terms of Service, which states:
In any event, if there is a known program or service interruption in excess of 24 consecutive hours (or in excess of such lesser time period pursuant to state law), Cablevision, upon prompt notification of such failure or interruption, will either provide Subscriber with a pro-rata credit relating to such failure or interruption or, at its discretion, in lieu of the credit provide alternative programming during any program interruption.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs seek a refund of their monthly cable bill for the 2-week blackout. It is alleged that the blackout came at a particularly important time, as subscribers were unable to watch the New York Giants or the Philadelphia Phillies, who were in the MLB playoffs, and were deprived of Fox’s political coverage during an important midterm election.
Judge Seybert’s opinion is a victory for consumers, who are often left without any choice of cable provider and must bear the brunt of contract negotiations, along with increased monthly fees, without any real alternative for cable television.
The Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ consumer fraud and other related claims.
The Law Office of Todd J. Krouner, in Chappaqua, New York, serves as interim co-lead and liaison counsel to the plaintiffs. A copy of Judge Seybert’s decision is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner at (914) 238-5800.
read moreMoody’s Must Defend Against Whistleblower’s Claim For Unlawful Termination
March 1st, 2012PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Ilya Eric Kolchinsky v. Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investor Service, Inc.
and Raymond McDaniel
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Civil Action No.: 10 CV 6840 (PAC)
By Order dated February 27, 2012, United States District Court Judge Paul A. Crotty denied Moody’s Corporation’s, Moody’s Investor Service, Inc.’s (referred to collectively herein as “Moody’s”) and Raymond McDaniel’s motion to dismiss the claim of retaliatory discharge by whistleblower, Ilya Eric Kolchinsky.
In his complaint, Mr. Kolchinsky, a former Managing Director of Moody’s, alleged three separate acts of whistleblowing involving Moody’s ratings of ABS-CDOs, the products that
were responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars of losses at financial institutions, and three corresponding acts of retaliation. Mr. Kolchinsky was constructively terminated from his employment in 2009, after he reported that: 1) Moody’s was filing false reports, and 2) Moody’s actions in connection with its ratings were in violation of the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and/or federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.
Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley “Whistle Blower” statute makes it unlawful for certain employers to “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms or conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee . . . to provide information . . . or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation” of certain, enumerated federal laws. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.
Judge Crotty held that “a plaintiff need not allege termination to state a claim under Section 1514A.” Instead, it is sufficient to show that a plaintiff suffered “a materially adverse change” in his employment status, such as “a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibility, or other indices.” (Internal citations omitted.) Accordingly, the Court held that Mr. Kolchinsky “sufficiently alleged that Moody’s took ‘unfavorable personnel action’ against him after he reported what he believed were potential violations of the federal securities laws and SEC rules.”
The Court’s decision reaffirms the rights of financial analysts, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to fulfill their responsibilities to shareholders and investors, free from the threat of retaliation by senior management. Given Moody’s central role in the financial crisis of 2008, this decision is especially important.
The Court dismissed Mr. Kolchinsky’s defamation and other related claims.
Mr. Kolchinsky is represented by Joshua H. Reisman of Reisman Sorokac in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Todd J. Krouner and Diana M. Carlino of the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua, New York.
A copy of Judge Crotty’s decision is available here. For further information, please contact Joshua H. Reisman at (702) 727-6258, or Todd J. Krouner at (914) 238-5800.
If you or a loved one has been retaliated against, terminated or demoted, as a result of speaking out, or because of age, sex, religion, national origin, race or disability, you should promptly contact an attorney with experience in employment law. The Law Office of Todd J. Krouner has a proven track record of helping victims of employment discrimination. To determine if you have a strong case, contact us for a free consultation at (914) 238-5800.
read moreDr. Dudley Sued For LASIK Surgery Malpractice
January 9th, 2012January 9, 2012
PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Travis Wilke and
Cyrene Wilke v. Stephen S. Dudley, M.D., Optivision Eye Care, LLP, the Eye
Clinic of the Fox Valley, S.C., et al.
Circuit Court Branch,
Outagamie County, Wisconsin
DR. DUDLEY SUED FOR LASIK SURGERY MALPRACTICE
On December 29, 2011, Travis Wilke filed a complaint against Stephen S. Dudley, M.D., Optivision Eye Care, LLP, and the Eye Clinic of the Fox Valley, S.C., in the Circuit Court of the State of Wisconsin, for the negligent performance of LASIK
surgery.
The Complaint alleges that in January 1998, Mr. Wilke presented at Optivision for consultation for LASIK surgery. Optivision doctors explained to Mr. Wilke that at that point, he was not a good candidate for the surgery, due to the condition of his corneas. They directed Mr. Wilke to return for periodic examinations, in the hope that the LASIK technology might improve. Mr. Wilke returned to Optivision for consultations in October 2002, August 2004, and November 2006.
During his examination on November 28, 2006, Dr. Dudley told Mr. Wilke that he was a suitable candidate for LASIK surgery, even though his pre-surgical screening revealed abnormal corneas. In fact, Mr. Wilke had keratoconus, for which
LASIK surgery was a known contraindication. On January 18, 2007, while failing to appreciate that surgery was contraindicated, Dr. Dudley performed the negligent LASIK surgery upon both of Mr. Wilke’s eyes.
When the surgery failed, leaving Mr. Wilke with blurry vision in his left eye. Dr. Dudley scheduled corrective surgery, which in the LASIK industry is euphemistically referred to as an “enhancement,” for August 23, 2007. Due to the condition of Mr. Wilke’s left eye, his enhancement was also contraindicated. Accordingly, the second surgery actually made Mr. Wilke’s vision worse. As a result of the repeated, contraindicated surgeries, Mr. Wilke developed post-LASIK ectasia in both eyes.
Ectasia is a disorder that causes progressive thinning and weakening of the cornea. Patients with ectasia, including Mr. Wilke, suffer from problems related not only to the clarity of their vision, or visual acuity, but also to the quality of their vision, including without limitation, halos, blurry vision, glare, ghosting, starbursts, double vision, light sensitivity, contrast sensitivity, loss of depth perception, difficulty driving, especially at night, headaches, dry eyes, and foreign body sensation.
Mr. Wilke lives with his wife, Cyrene, in Kimberly, Wisconsin.
Mr. and Mrs. Wilke are represented by the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua, New York, and Gingras, Cates & Luebke, S.C., of Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Krouner represents victims of LASIK surgery throughout the United States.
Mr. Gingras has extensive experience in litigating medical malpractice actions.
A copy of the complaint is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq., at (914) 238-5800, or Robert J. Gingras, Esq., at (608) 833-2632.
read more
Dr. Burger Sued For LASIK Surgery Malpractice
December 21st, 2011On December 2, 2011, Dipak Patel and Tejal Patel filed a complaint against Martin E. Burger, D.O., Brian R. Atkins, O.D., and Lange Eye Care and Associates, P.A., in the Circuit Court In and For Marion County, Florida, for the negligent performance of LASIK surgery.
In June 2007, Dr. Burger performed LASIK surgery on both of Mr. Patel’s eyes. The complaint alleges that during the patient’s pre-LASIK eye examination, Dr. Burger and Dr. Atkins – Mr. Patel’s optometrist who recommended him for LASIK surgery – failed to recognize signs of keratoconus, for which LASIK surgery is contraindicated. As a result, Mr. Patel developed post-LASIK ectasia, and is now legally blind in his right eye, and vision in his left eye is significantly worse than it was before the surgery.
Ectasia is a disorder that causes progressive thinning and weakening of the cornea. Patients with ectasia often suffer a loss of visual acuity. In addition, individuals may suffer from a host of problems related to the quality of their vision, which include halos, blurry vision, glare, ghosting, starbursts, double vision, light sensitivity, contrast sensitivity, loss of depth perception, difficulty driving a motor vehicle, especially at night, headaches, dry eyes, and foreign body sensation.
Dr. Burger holds himself in the highest regard. On his website, he boasts that he “is one of the most experienced LASIK surgeons in the country in that he has successfully performed more LASIK procedures than almost every other LASIK surgeon in the country.” See http://lasikspecialistsindiana.com/. Dr. Burger travels the country performing LASIK surgery in at least six states, including Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio, in addition to his nine office locations throughout Florida, including Clearwater, Coral Springs, Gainesville, Inverness, Lighthouse Point, Ocala, Orange Park, Orlando, and The Villages. See e.g. http://www.lasikspecialistsbocaraton.com; http://www.visiononelasikcenter.com/; http://lasikspecialistsindiana.com/; http://www.lasikspecialistskentucky.com; http://www.lasikstlouis.net/; http://lasikspecialistscolumbus.com/; http://www.drblasik.com/.
Mr. Patel is represented by the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua, New York, and Avera & Smith, LLP, of Gainesville, Florida. Mr. Krouner represents victims of LASIK surgery throughout the United States. Mr. Avera has extensive experience in litigating medical malpractice actions.
A copy of the complaint is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq., at (914) 238-5800, or Mark Avera, Esq., at (800) 654-4659.
read moreMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED IN CLAIM FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED IN FALL FROM FORKLIFT
October 12th, 2011Ciro Alfonso v. Pacific Classon Realty, LLC
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings
Index No. 12885/06
By Order dated September 20, 2011, Hon. Mark I. Partnow, Kings County Supreme Court, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff was attempting to remove a heating unit from the ceiling of a warehouse, at the direction of his employer, when the unit fell. The force of the falling unit caused plaintiff to fall off a skid, elevated by a forklift, to the ground. Plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries as a result. Plaintiff received an award from the Workers’ Compensation Board, against his employer, D.S. Imports, Inc. Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, as property owners or agents, under N.Y. Labor Law § 240.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law barred any action against Delmar Sales, Inc.
Judge Partnow found that defendants “failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was their special employee…or that they were alter egos of, or engaged in a joint venture with, DS Imports, plaintiff’s employer.” Judge Partnow also found that Workers’ Compensation Law does not bar plaintiff’s claim “merely because the relevant entities are owned by the same principals.”
Finally, Judge Partnow held that the removal of a broken heating unit from the ceiling of the warehouse is akin to “repair,” and not routine maintenance. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim is viable under Labor Law §240.
The plaintiff is represented by Todd J. Krouner and Diana M. Carlino of the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua, New York. For further information, please contact them at (914) 238-5800. A copy of Judge Partnow’s Order and Decision is available here.
read moreDr. Owczarek Sued For LASIK Surgery Malpractice
October 5th, 2011PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thomas Baird v. Frank R. Owczarek, M.D. and Eye Care of Delaware, LLC
In the Superior Court of the State ofDelaware, Case No. N11C-09-241 RRC
DR. OWCZAREK SUED FOR LASIK SURGERY MALPRACTICE
On September 3, 2011, Thomas Baird filed a complaint against Frank R. Owczarek, M.D., and Eye Care of Delaware, LLC, in the Superior Court of the State ofDelaware, for the negligent performance of LASIK surgery.
In January 2004, Dr. Owczarek performed LASIK surgery on both of Mr. Baird’s eyes. The complaint alleges that after the initial surgery failed, leaving Mr. Baird with visual acuity worse than 20/50 and 20/60, in his right and left eye, respectively, Dr. Owczarek proposed additional surgery on October 14, 2009. However, during the patient’s pre-enhancement eye examination, Dr. Owczarek failed to see signs of ectasia, for which LASIK surgery is contraindicated. As a result, Mr. Baird is now legally blind in his left eye, and vision in his right eye is significantly worse than it was before the surgeries.
Ectasia is a disorder that causes progressive thinning and weakening of the cornea. Patients with ectasia often suffer a loss of visual acuity. In addition, individuals may suffer from a host of problems related to the quality of their vision, which include halos, blurry vision, glare, ghosting, starbursts, double vision, light sensitivity, contrast sensitivity, loss of depth perception, difficulty driving a motor vehicle, especially at night, headaches, dry eyes, and foreign body sensation.
Mr. Baird is represented by the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua, New York, and Hudson & Castle Law, of Wilmington, Delaware. Mr. Krouner represents victims of LASIK surgery throughout theUnited States. Mr. Hudson has extensive experience in litigating medical malpractice actions.
A copy of the complaint is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq., at (914) 238-5800, or Bruce Hudson, Esq., at (302)504-8146.
read more$4,520,299.58 Judgment Against LASIK Surgeon, Kevin Niksarli, M.D
September 2nd, 2011PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Johnson Devadas and Saramma Devadas v. Kevin Niksarli, M.D.,
Manhattan LASIK Center, PLLC, and NewSight Laser Center, PLLC
New York County, Supreme Court of the State of New York
Index # 107637/07
On August 12, 2011, a judgment in the amount of $4,520,299.58 was entered against LASIK surgeon, Kevin Niksarli, M.D., and his professional corporation, NewsightLaserCenter, PLLC.
On June 10, 2009, a Manhattan jury returned a verdict against Dr. Niksarli, in Devadas v. Niksarli, Index No. 107637/2007, for his medical negligence in having performed LASIK surgery on a patient who was not a good candidate for surgery because of the condition of his corneas. As a result, the evidence showed that Mr. Devadas developed a visually disabling condition, post-LASIK ectasia.
Following the verdict, Dr. Niksarli asked the trial court to overturn the verdict. By decision and order dated July 14, 2010, the trial judge rejected Dr. Niksarli’s motion.
The judgment, which exceeds Dr. Niksarli’s available malpractice insurance by more than $1 million, may be appealed within approximately 30 days.
The judgment modifies the jury’s verdict, to reduce the awards of $2,360,000 for loss of income and $3,100,000 for pain and suffering, to present value. It is believed to be the first such judgment entered in a medical malpractice case in the New York County Supreme Court, since the statute, CPLR Article 50-A, §5031 – 5039, was implemented by the legislature to protect doctors and hospitals.
For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner at tkrouner@krounerlaw.com or (914) 238-5800.
read more
Caucasian Flight Engineers Pursue Their Employment Discrimination Claims in New York
August 8th, 2011PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Bakeer v. Nippon Cargo Airlines, Co., Ltd., et al.
09-CV-3374(RRM)
A federal court in Brooklyn, New York, ruled that Caucasian flight engineers, based at John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”), can pursue their employment discrimination claims in New York, against a Japanese air cargo carrier. In Bakeer v. Nippon Cargo Airlines, 09-CV-3374 (RRM), four former flight engineers sued for discrimination, based on national origin, race, and age, when they were fired, while their younger, Japanese counterparts were offered new opportunities when Nippon Cargo Airlines (“NCA”) changed its equipment.
Defendants, NCA, and plaintiffs’ alleged joint employers, PARC U.S., Parc Aviation Limited (Ireland), and Hawaii Aviation Contract Services (“HACS”), moved to dismiss the complaints on forum non conveniens grounds and for failure to state a claim.
In a 94-page Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak recommended that the District Court deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, and further recommended that the District Court deny defendants’ motion to dismiss the substance of the flight engineers’ discrimination claims.
Among several reasons why the court reasoned that the discrimination case should stay in New York, is that three of the plaintiffs had New York choice of law provisions in their written employment agreements with defendants.
Although none of the flight engineers reside in New York, each was based at NCA’s hub at JFK. While NCA argued that the flight engineers spent more time flying than working on the ground, the Court reasoned: “Surely, defendants cannot be suggesting that plaintiffs’ primary place of employment, where they ‘spent most of their working hours’ is in the air, and that therefore, there is no physical location that can serve as a proper forum for the litigation of plaintiffs’ employment discrimination claims.” Report, 27, n. 28.
Plaintiffs include: Hakeem Bakeer, who is a U.S. citizen, who resides in Springfield, Virginia; David Michaud, who died after the lawsuit began, was a U.S. citizen, who resided in Sacramento, California; Mark Weaver, who is a U.S. citizen, who resides in Ypsilanti, Michigan; and Douglas Frith, who is an Australian citizen and resident.
Each of the flight engineers had flown 747-Cargo planes for at least seven years before each was fired.
Each plaintiff has sued under federal, state and city anti-discrimination laws, including:
Title VII
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)
Section 1981
New York State Human Rights Law
New York City Human Rights Law
In addition, they have asserted various claims asserting the Family Medical Leave Act and retaliation, which the court has recommended be re-pleaded to add additional detail.
Defendants have 14 days to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
The plaintiffs are represented by Todd J. Krouner and Diana M. Carlino from the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner, in Chappaqua, New York. A copy of the Report is available here.
read more
Dr. Michael DuPlessie, Self-Proclaimed “World’s Best Eye Surgeon,” Sued For LASIK Malpractice
April 29th, 2011On January 3, 2011, Dean D’Angelo filed a statement of claim against Michael Duplessie, M.D., and Cataract and Laser Eye Institute of America, P.C., in the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office for the State of Maryland, for the negligent performance of LASIK surgery.
In March 2007, Dr. Duplessie performed LASIK eye surgery on Mr. D’Angelo. The statement of claim alleges that when the initial surgery failed to improve Mr. D’Angelo’s vision, Dr. Duplessie performed a second surgery, or so-called “enhancement,” in June 2007, on Mr. D’Angelo’s right eye, without having performed appropriate pre-operative testing. When the second surgery did not improve Mr. D’Angelo’s vision, Dr. Duplessie performed a third surgery on Mr. D’Angelo’s right eye, in February 2009, again without having performed appropriate pre-operative testing. When Dr. Duplessie’s third surgery failed, he performed a fourth surgery on both of Mr. D’Angelo’s eyes, on August 7, 2009. After four failed surgeries, Dr. Duplessie recommended a fifth surgery for Mr. D’Angelo. At that point, Mr. D’Angelo sought a second opinion, whereupon he learned that he had the cornea disease “ectasia,” and was not a suitable candidate for LASIK surgery. The statement of claim contends that Dr. Duplessie’s negligence in performing repeated surgeries on Mr. D’Angelo, rendered him legally blind in the right eye with a visual acuity of 20/600.
Ectasia is a disorder that causes progressive thinning and weakening of the cornea. Patients with ectasia often suffer a loss of visual acuity. In addition, individuals may suffer from a host of problems related to the quality of their vision, which include, without limitation, halos, blurry vision, glare, ghosting, starbursts, double vision, light sensitivity, contrast sensitivity, loss of depth perception, difficulty driving a motor vehicle, especially at night, headaches, dry eyes, and foreign body sensation.
Dr. Duplessie holds himself in the highest regard. On his website, he boasts that he is the “World’s Best Eye Surgeon,” and in a press release dated December 9, 2010, proclaims that he is “a renowned and ethical doctor whose fame and glory knows no bounds.” See www.worldsbesteyesurgeon.com and this press release: “Dr. Michael Duplessie has been recommended as best physicians in DC, Maryland, and Virginia.”
Mr. D’Angelo lives with his wife, Tracey, and three children in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Mr. and Mrs. D’Angelo are represented by the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua, New York, and George S. Tolley, III, of Timonium, Maryland. Mr. Krouner represents victims of LASIK surgery throughout the United States. Mr. Tolley has extensive experience in litigating medical malpractice actions, including LASIK malpractice.
A copy of the statement of claim is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq., at (914) 238-5800, or George S. Tolley, III, Esq., at (410) 308-1600.
read more$450 Million Class Action Complaint Filed against Cablevision Systems Corp. for Denying Customers’ Paid Services
April 21st, 2011The Law Office of Todd J. Krouner has filed a $450,000,000 class action complaint against Cablevision Systems Corp. The complaint was filed on behalf of three million Cablevision customers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut who have been denied the Fox channels for which they have paid. Gallo v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 10 CIV 08125 (SDNY) was filed on October 26, and alleges that customers have been ignored and deprived of Fox Television’s content since October 16, over a critical time in our nation regarding politics, sports and entertainment.
Cablevision has been preoccupied in a contract dispute with Fox Television’s corporate parent, News Corporation, and has refused to pay them. The class action claim asserts that customers paid for access to specific channels advertised by Cablevision with the expectation that they would be provided full, uninterrupted service, including Fox channels. The suit alleges that Cablevision knew, or reasonably should have known, that it could not supply said service considering the current state of their unresolved contract dispute with News Corp. However, Cablevision proceeded to accept payments from class members for services that they could not provide.
In claiming that customers have been denied restitution for a substantial and material interruption of service, in addition to being denied Fox channel programs that were paid for, the lawsuit also asserts that Cablevision has refused to give customers any rebate for their approximate payment of $150 a month.
Moreover, the complaint seeks damages for class action members based on the consumer fraud statutes of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. In seeking injunctive relief, the suit aims to prevent Cablevision from failing to resolve contract disputes in a timely manner with its content providers in order to prevent similar programming blackouts in the future for paying customers.
The Law Office of Todd J. Krouner prides itself in being a litigation boutique focused on excellent client service and providing committed, personal attention. In being dedicated to ensuring that our clients’ rights are protected, we work diligently to obtain successful case outcomes. For more information regarding the Cablevision class action complaint, please send an email to info@krounerlaw.com.
read moreIvy English and Larry Lay v. Voigt & Schweitzer, Inc., Voigt & Schweitzer LLC and Hernandez Gustano
April 16th, 2010
Bronx woman seriously injured when rear-ended on the Cross Bronx Expressway by a tractor trailer. On February 17, 2010, Ivy English and her husband Larry Lay, filed a civil suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx, to recover for the serious personal injuries Ms. English sustained when her vehicle was struck in the rear by an 18-wheel tractor trailer.
read more
DR. MARK WHITTEN, DR. L. EDWARD PERRAUT, M.D., & TLC SUED FOR LASIK MALPRACTICE
March 18th, 2010PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jamie Domeier vs. Mark Whitten, M.D., L. Edward Perraut, Jr. M.D., TLC The Laser Center
(Northeast) Inc., Jo Angeles, O.D., Andrew Morgenstern, O.D., Greg W. McGrew, O.D., Paul J.
Chmielewski, O.D., and Eyecare Center Of Leesburg, P.C.
Virginia Circuit Court of Fairfax County
Case # CL 2009-2959
DR. MARK WHITTEN, DR. L. EDWARD PERRAUT, M.D., & TLC SUED FOR LASIK MALPRACTICE – On August 7, 2009 plaintiff, Jamie Domeier, served her Complaint against Mark Whitten, M.D., L. Edward Perraut, Jr., M.D., TLC The Laser Center (Northeast) Inc., Jo Angeles, O.D., Andrew Morgenstern, O.D., Greg W. McGrew, O.D., Paul J. Chmielewski, O.D., and Eyecare Center Of Leesburg, P.C., in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, for failing to appropriately manage Jamie Domeier’s post-operative LASIK care.
Ms. Domeier had LASIK surgery at a TLC facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Following Jamie Domeier’s LASIK surgery, she was instructed to return to northern Virginia for her post-operative care. During that post-operative care, Ms. Domeier was bounced around among various eyecare professionals including, but not limited to, four optometrists and two ophthalmologists, including Defendant Mark Whitten, M.D. Defendant Mark Whitten, M.D. was Tiger Woods’s LASIK surgeon and is the Regional Medical Director for TLC Laser Eye Centers in the Washington, D.C. Metro Area and Richmond, VA.
The Complaint alleges that defendants passed Ms. Domeier from one doctor to another, prescribed steroid eye drops, while no one took charge of her post-operative care, nor carefully monitored or appropriately responded to the increase in her intraocular pressure, which was caused by the steroids. Consequently, after months of incompetent post-operative care, she was initially seen by a glaucoma specialist who diagnosed her with irreversible and permanent nerve damage to her optic nerves. Ms. Domeier now suffers from steroid induced glaucoma which was caused as a result of the negligence of Defendant TLC, and that of its several eye care professionals, who supposedly “co-managed” her post-operative care.
Ms. Domeier is a 23-year-old salesperson, who had aspirations to perform in the highest level of equestrian competition. However, as a result of the incompetent co-managed care system of the defendants, she is blind in her left eye. Jamie Domeier’s equestrian career has ended, barely before it had begun.
The plaintiffs are represented by Todd J. Krouner, from Chappaqua, New York, and Donna Miller Rostant, of Jones & Rostant, P.C., from Fairfax, Virginia. Mr. Krouner and Ms. Rostant represent victims of LASIK surgery throughout the United States.
For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq., at (914) 238-5800, or Donna Miller Rostant, Esq., at (703) 352-0522
read moreLaurie Shrieves v. Quentin Franklin, M.D., and LCA-Vision, Inc. d/b/a LASIKPlus
February 5th, 2010PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Laurie Shrieves v. Quentin Franklin, M.D., and LCA-Vision, Inc. d/b/a LASIKPlus
Virginia Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake
Case No. CL 10000278-00
DR. QUENTIN FRANKLIN AND LASIKPLUS SUED FOR LASIK MALPRACTICE – On February 5, 2010, plaintiff, Laurie Shrieves, filed suit against Quentin Franklin, M.D., and VCA-Vision, Inc., d/b/a LASIKPlus, in the Virginia Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake, for the negligent performance of LASIK surgery on Ms. Shrieves. On June 29, 2008, Ms. Shrieves came under the care and treatment of Dr. Franklin for the purpose of having LASIK surgery on both eyes at LCA-Vision, Inc., d/b/a LASIKPlus. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Dr. Franklin was negligent when he performed the LASIK surgery more than three millimeters off center of the pupil. As a result, Ms. Shrieves’ cornea became abnormal and developed a decentered ablation. A decentered ablation refers to when the laser treatment removes tissue from an area outside of the intended surgical zone. Laser ablations that are off-center can cause visual symptoms, including glare, halos, ghost images, and blurred vision. Consequently, Ms. Shrieves’ vision has suffered severely.
The plaintiffs are represented by Todd J. Krouner, from Chappaqua, New York, and Thomas Shuttleworth of Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock, P.C., from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Mr. Krouner represents victims of LASIK surgery throughout the United States. Mr. Shuttleworth has extensive experience in litigating medical malpractice actions.
A copy of plaintiffs’ complaint is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq., at (914) 238-5800, or Thomas Shuttleworth, Esq., at (757) 671-6020.
read moreThe New York City Police Department and Westchester County Police Department Sued for Arresting and Brutality Beating an Innocent Man
December 1st, 2009On November 10, 2009, Frank DeMichele filed suit against the City of New York and the County of Westchester for false arrest, excessive use of force and malicious prosecution. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in New York City.
The complaint alleges that Mr. DeMichele was home with his mother and girlfriend, when police arrived at his residence during the early morning hours of January 2009. Police officers from the NYPD and Westchester County Police were involved in a vehicle chase of another young male, Frank Desideri, who was also wanted for a robbery the previous evening. Mr. Desideri abandoned his car in front of Mr. DeMichele’s residence, and ran through Mr. DeMichele’s home to evade the police. Police officers mistook Mr. DeMichele for Mr. Desideri, forcibly removed him from his home, and brutality beat him in front of his mother and girlfriend.
Pleas from both Mr. DeMichele’s mother and girlfriend that police search the premises for Mr. Desideri fell on deaf ears. Mr. DeMichele was arrested and detained by the NYPD. Despite various witness accounts clearning Mr. DeMichele at the time of his arrest, and at the 45th precinct where he was held, police charged him with various crimes including felony robbery, theft and resisting arrest. Mr. De Michele was later exonerated of any wrongdoing and all charges against him were dismissed.
The complaint alleges that, police officers employed by both the City of New York and Westchester County, used excessive force on the plaintiff when they subjected him to a false arrest. The complaint further alleges that the City of New York maliciously prosecuted Mr. DeMichele when there was no basis to do so.
Mr. DeMichele is 20-years-old and was denied employment due to the false criminal charges made against him. He continues to seek treatment for his injuries, both physical and emotional. He has permanent nerve damage affecting his hands and back, and suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
The plaintiff is represented by Todd J. Krouner and Diana M. Carlino of the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner in Chappaqua New York. Mr. Krouner and Ms. Carlino represent victims who are subjected to civil rights violations, including false arrest and police brutality in New York.
A copy of plaintiff’s complaint is available here. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, or Diana Carlino at (914) 238-5800.
read more
$5.6 Million LASIK Eye Medical Malpractice Verdict
June 10th, 2009PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Johnson Devadas and Saramma Devadas v. Kevin Niksarli, M.D., Manhattan LASIK Center, PLLC, and NewSight Laser Center, PLLC New York County, Supreme Court of the State of New York Index # 107637/07
$5.6 MILLION LASIK EYE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE VERDICT. On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, a jury in New York City returned a verdict of nearly $5.6 million against Kevin Niksarli, M.D., for LASIK malpractice. The verdict consisted of an award of: $2,360,000 for the patient’s loss of income; $3,100,000 for the patient’s pain and suffering, including loss of life’s enjoyment; and $120,000 for the patient’s wife’s claim for loss of her husband’s services and consortium. This is the second largest verdict ever for LASIK malpractice.
The lawsuit, Devadas v. Niksarli, Index No. 107637/07 (Supreme Court New York County), was commenced on May 31, 2007. The trial began on May 20, 2009, and lasted 10 days. The jury of three men and three women deliberated for 2 and one-half days. The Honorable Doris Ling-Cohan presided over the trial.
The plaintiff, Johnson Devadas, is a pharmacist who lives and works in Queens, New York. On March 25, 2004, Dr. Niksarli concluded that Mr. Devadas was a suitable candidate for LASIK surgery. However, plaintiff’s medical expert testified that he was not. Paul Donzis, M.D., and ophthalmologist and cornea specialist from Los Angeles, California, testified that prior to the elective surgery, the plaintiff had a contraindication to LASIK surgery, forme fruste keratoconus. Dr. Donzis explained that forme fruste keratoconus was a stable or abortive form of keratoconus that would not likely progress without LASK surgery. However, as a result of the LASIK surgery, it caused the cornea to develop post-LASIK ectasia, or a progressive thinning of the cornea. Ectasia causes problems with visual quality, including blurriness, halos, double vision, glare, contrast sensitivity, starbursts and a host of related phenomena involving the distortion of light as it passes through the diseased cornea.
In addition to Dr. Donzis, plaintiffs called Albert Lyter, Ph.D., from Raleigh, North Carolina. Dr. Lyter is a former federal agent trained in ink dating analysis. Dr. Lyter testified that Dr. Kevin Niksarli intentionally artificially aged a note in his chart concerning his purported conversation with the patient and his wife concerning the risks, benefits, and alternatives to LASIK surgery.
Anthony Gamboa, Ph.D., also testified as an expert in vocational economics concerning plaintiff’s loss of income. Dr. Gamboa is from Miami, Florida.
Dr. Niksarli called Wing Chu, M.D., from New York City, to discuss his so-called independent examination of the plaintiff. On cross-examination, Dr. Chu testified that his version of the Hippocratic Oath, in part, translates to first do no harm to any ophthalmologist.
Dr. Niksarli also called Peter Hersh, M.D., from Teaneck, New Jersey, as his cornea expert. On cross-examination, Dr. Hersh indicated that he only testified for defendants’ counsel, who had previously represented him in his own medical malpractice case.
The plaintiffs were represented by Todd J. Krouner, from Chappaqua, New York. In 2005, Mr. Krouner obtained the largest verdict for LASIK malpractice, in the amount of $7.25 million. See Schiffer v. Speaker, Index No. 101191/03 (Supreme Court New York County 2005).
The defendants were represented by Neil H. Ekblom, of Clausen Miller, in New York, NY. Prior to this verdict, Mr. Ekblom’s webpage boasted that he had obtained a string of 19 consecutive defense verdicts. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner at info@krounerlaw.com or at (914) 238-5800.
read more
