Chappaqua Personal Injury Blog

In 2005, I obtained a LASIK malpractice verdict against Mark Speaker, M.D., who was Medical Director of TLC in New York. Since that time, I believed that this LASIK super store, which touted Tiger Woods as its celebrity endorser, had a bankrupt business model. It paid optometrists to funnel LASIK candidates onto its surgical conveyor belt, even if the optometrists were unskilled to screen patients competently. Compounding the hazard, sometimes the LASIK surgeons were too busy operating on dozens of patients a day to confirm that the pre-screened patients were truly suitable for eye surgery.

TLC called this dubious design “co-managed care,” whereby the optometrist and ophthalmologist shared responsibility for patient care. However, time and experience teach that co-managed care often translates to no managed care.

Mark Whitten, M.D., Tiger Woods’s personal LASIK surgeon, is currently being sued in one such case, where his 22-year old patient was blinded in one eye, from steroid induced glaucoma, after being bounced among seven different TLC co-managing eye care professionals.

Moreover, by its own admission, TLC confesses in its Annual Statement to its stockholders, which is filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, that its business model may be illegal:

“Many states prohibit a physician from sharing or “splitting” fees with persons or entities not authorized to practice medicine. The Company’s co-management model for refractive procedures presumes that a patient will make a single global payment to the laser center, which is a management entity acting on behalf of the ophthalmologist and optometrist to collect fees on their behalf. In turn, the ophthalmologist and optometrist pay facility and management fees to the laser center out of the patient fees collected. While the Company believes that these arrangements do not violate any of the prohibitions in any material respects, one or more states may interpret this structure as non-compliant with the state fee-splitting prohibition, thereby requiring the Company to change its procedures in connection with billing and collecting for services. Violation of state fee-splitting prohibitions may subject the ophthalmologists and optometrists to sanctions, and may result in the Company incurring legal fees, as well as being subjected to fines or other costs, and this could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and operations.”

In December 2009, TLC’s bankrupt business model literally became bankrupt. Was it just because of the economy? Is it because patients no longer want LASIK eye surgery? Is it because its doctors are unsophisticated businessmen? Or is it because enough eye doctors, like former TLC Medical Director Stephen Brint, M.D., believe that this business model of entrusting surgical clearance of LASIK patients to persons who are not eye surgeons is a bad idea?

The TLC Vision Corporation, a $300 million eye care services company with offices throughout North America, has announced that it is filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. On December 21, 2009, the vision corporation, and two of its corporate affiliates filed petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in an effort to reorganize its balance sheet.

The bankruptcy restructuring is part of a prearranged deal that will give total control of the eye-surgery company to lenders, wiping out shareholders. The reorganization plan converts debt to 100% of the new equity of TLC, which will emerge as a privately held company. The plan included a $15 million debtor-in-possession financing facility.

The vision giant claims that operations at its more than 80 refractive centers will somehow remain unaffected. These centers are locations where individuals undergo laser vision surgeries including LASIK, Custom LASIK and Bladeless LASIK, and while the surgeons, patients and affiliates may not notice a marked difference in business dealings with TLC, the original shareholders of the company are not so fortunate. As with all bankruptcy proceedings, only after lenders, vendors and creditors have been paid in full would shareholders be entitled to receive anything in respect of their shares. Often in bankruptcy proceedings, shareholders receive nothing because there are insufficient assets to satisfy all holders in full.

As the LASIK eye center giant moves forward with its reorganized business model, we are left to wonder the wisdom of having an eye care services company that must only consider the bottom line when answering to its investors. Investors who in this instance, have gone from private shareholders to corporate lending entities who are solely concerned with increasing the profit associated with their financial investments.

TLC is not the only publicly traded laser eye surgery giant. LVI, doing business as LASIKPlus, is another. I am no financial analyst. And, I am not in the business of dispensing investment advice. However, I would venture to guess that LVI’s fortunes must be evaporating faster than its patients’ painful dry eyes. My only LASIK regret is not having placed a wager that TLC would topple in 2005, when its stock price was still above $7 per share. As of March 18, 2010, its stock price is quoted at $0.10 per share.

If you had a bad LASIK eye surgery at TLC, LVI or elsewhere, and would like a free, confidential consultation, contact New York LASIK attorney Todd J. Krouner at info@krounerlaw.com.

Source:http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1010610/000095012309005875/c50319e10vk.htm; United States Securities and Exchange Commission. TLC Vision Corporation Form 10-K for the Year Ending December 31, 2008, at page 17. Commission File No. 0-29302.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation has finally shut down one of its most sued LASIK surgeons, after more than a decade of complaints.

Dr. Nicholas Caro was found guilty of unprofessional conduct and gross negligence earlier this month. However, he has been sued nearly 50 times for medical malpractice since the 1990’s.

While he has been banned from performing any more LASIK surgery, and fined $10,000, that is a small consolation for the dozens of patients who have suffered life altering visual disabilities as a result of his unprofessional conduct and gross negligence.

The fact that Dr. Caro’s colleagues and the Illinois licensing authorities tolerated his misconduct for more than a decade is inexplicable.

If you are a potential patient entering the Wild, Wild West of LASIK, the good surgeons vastly outnumber the bad. However, bad doctors like Nick Caro do not come with warning labels. Consequently, you are on your own.

Coincidentally, the Chicago Tribune story has two ads by Google linked to this story. One is to LASIKPlus, whom I sued in Virginia earlier this month. The second is for “Cornell-Columbia-Harvard trained” Dr. Kevin Niksarli, M.D., against whom I obtained a $5.6 million LASIK malpractice verdict in June 2009.

Sources: Chicago Tribune Article Regarding Dr. Nick Caro - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-bad-eye-doctor-20100219,0,2101781.story; Lawsuits Against Dr. Nick Caro - http://www.lifeafterlasik.com/nickcarolawsuits.htm; Niksarli Verdict Press Release - http://www.krounerlaw.com/press-release-061109.html; LASIKPlus Press Release - http://www.krounerlaw.com/press-release-021210.html

As a New York LASIK malpractice attorney, frequently, LASIK patients contact me and complain that they have suffered complications from their surgery. They quickly add that they fear that they signed papers (which they call a “release,” or more accurately, an informed consent form), prior to their surgery, preventing them from pursuing a lawsuit. However, signing an informed consent form does not prevent legal action. The doctor’s pre-operative informed consent form does not protect him from his own negligence.

In New York, the Pattern Jury Instructions, which a judge reads to a jury in a medical malpractice case, provide the following statement of the doctor’s duty of informed consent to his patient:

“Before obtaining a patient’s consent to an operation or invasive diagnostic procedure or the use of medication, a doctor has the duty to provide certain information concerning what the doctor proposes to do, the alternatives to that operation, procedure or medication and the reasonably foreseeable risks of such operation, procedure or medication. It is the doctor’s duty to explain, in words that are understandable to the patient, all the facts that would be explained by a reasonable medical practitioner so that when the patient does, in fact, consent, that consent is given with an awareness of:

With LASIK surgery, it is customary for a patient to sign a multi-page typed form that purports to instruct the patient of all of the risks of surgery. According to TLC’s form, you may not be a candidate for LASIK surgery if you have:

“inflammation or infection, severely dry eyes, excessive corneal scarring, certain degenerations or dystrophies of the cornea, lazy eye, muscle imbalance, keratoconus or any condition which may affect healing; history of Herpes Simplex eye infections, uncontrolled vascular disease, uncontrolled diabetes, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis; a compromised immune system; a pacemaker or defibrillator; progressive nearsightedness or farsightedness; previous corneal surgery; corneal blood vessel growth; keloid formation; or have taken Accutane, Cordarone or Imitrex.”

TLC’s form also states that vision threatening complications include:

“excimer laser malfunction, causing permanent irregularity of the cornea leading to uncorrectable loss of vision; microkeratome or Pulsion-FS laser malfunction, causing an abnormal corneal flap leading to uncorrectable loss of vision;  decentered treatment causing permanent irregularity of the cornea, leading to uncorrectable loss of vision; irregular corneal healing which causes distortion, ghost images and scarring; epithelial healing defects, resulting in delayed healing, pain, light sensitivity, or infection; wrinkled, displaced or lost corneal flap; corneal infection; corneal inflammation; intractable glare and inability to function in a dark environment; retinal detachment, venous or arterial blockage of the retina, hemorrhage of the retina, cataract formation, total blindness or loss of the eye; and complications due to anesthetic drops or other medications used in conjunction with LASIK.”

Given the comprehensive nature of such forms, the patient wonders how he can sue when this fine print regrettably applies to him. First, the consent form does not protect the doctor from his own negligence. For example, if the patient initially was not a good candidate for surgery, if the doctor was negligent in performing the surgery, or if the laser malfunctioned, the informed consent form will not protect the doctor.

So, when might the informed consent form matter? A recent article in Cornea reports that 20% of LASIK patients suffer varying degrees of dry eye after LASIK surgery.  As a general rule, the complication or side effect of dry eyes is not due to any error or mistake by the doctor. It is generally considered to be a known and accepted risk of the surgery. The doctor tells you this so that you are not surprised if it happens to you. Dry eyes generally are not a sign of malpractice.  However, failing to inform a patient of this common side effect would constitute a breach of the duty of informed consent. (Bailey M.D., Zadnik K. “Outcomes of LASIK for myopia with FDA-approved lasers,” Cornea. 2007 Apr; 26(3):246-54.)

Informed consent is a process. It is not a piece of paper. The pre-printed informed consent form is prepared for the vast majority of refractive laser surgery patients. But if the patient is at higher risk because he has a pre-existing corneal condition or disease, such as keratoconus, is suspicion for ectasia, or has a thin cornea, the doctor has a duty to inform his patient.

Ideally, it would be appropriate for the doctor to give the patient the written form in advance of the day of the surgery, such as when the initial screening is performed. Then, the patient might actually be able to read and understand the form, and have a chance to ask the surgeon follow up questions. However, in some high volume LASIK surgery centers, patients have been given such forms after their eyes have been dilated, when they cannot read, or after they have given Valium as a sedative for the surgery, after which they may not fully comprehend what they are reading.

If you have had LASIK surgery and suffered a complication, you should contact a lawyer to investigate whether you have a malpractice claim. Your having signed an informed consent form does not prevent you from pursuing a valid claim of surgical negligence.

If you have not yet had surgery, you should insist on speaking to the surgeon, and not your optometrist, or “technician.” You should ask your eye surgeon to describe to you in terms that you can understand the risks, benefits and alternatives to surgery. The fact that LASIK surgery is customarily scheduled by the doctor in 15 minute increments, and takes just seconds to perform, does not mean that the doctor cannot give you 5 minutes of his time to talk to you, especially after having paid thousands of dollars for the surgery. Most importantly, you should acknowledge that you have read, or would like a chance to read, the written informed consent form, BUT you would like to know if there is any reason, particular to you, why the surgery may carry increased risks that do not apply to the general population. Given the elective nature of the surgery, if so, you may want to think long and hard about going forward with such surgery, and hope that you have surgeon who thinks the same way.

In a recent article, New York Times reporter Abby Ellin writes that Army doctor Erik J. Rupard, refers to LASIK as “the Tiger Woods of medical procedures: deeply and demonstrably flawed, but so many people love it that the few of us who speak ill of it are dismissed as cranks and/or loonies.”  Dr. Rupard’s assessment is based on the volume of dry eye complaints he witnessed in soldiers serving in Iraq.

More alarming still, is the admission of Morris Waxler, who as former branch chief of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Service and Technology, was responsible for the FDA’s approval of the first lasers in 1998.  Mr. Waxler says: “We screwed up…We should have looked at the worst-case impact on patients, rather than just the very good outcomes we saw in the clinical trials.”

Abby Ellin, who previously wrote of her own poignant LASIK regrets, reports that the LASIK industry disagrees with Dr. Rupard, and maintains that LASIK is among the safest elective procedures ever devised.  Millions of satisfied patients may agree.  And, some soldiers may claim that LASIK literally saved their lives, notwithstanding their dry eyes.

Still, for most of us civilians, the decision to have LASIK surgery is rarely a matter of life or death.  Hopefully, the recently announced FDA and Department of Defense proposed joint study will give LASIK consumers reliable information about LASIK complications and quality of life issues so that they can make an informed decision whether to have this surgery.

The statute of limitations refers to the period within which you must start a lawsuit.  If you fail to act in timely fashion, a court will dismiss your lawsuit, no matter how strong your claim may have been.  Consequently, tardy victims can be left without any legal remedy.  The statutes of limitations for medical malpractice vary from state to state in duration (and exceptions).  For instance, the statute of  limitations in New York is two and one half years, and may be extended, or “tolled”, if you continued treatment with the same physician for the same condition;  in New Jersey, the statute of limitations is two years, but may be extended until you discover your injury;  in California, the statute of limitations is three years, or one year from discovery of your injury, but in no event can you sue more than three years after the last act of the defendant doctor.

For victims of LASIK eye surgery malpractice, the statute of limitations poses extra perils.  Recently, I was contacted by doctor who had LASIK eye surgery at TLC in 2003, when he was living in California.  In 2004, he moved to New York, where his subsequent treating ophthalmologist diagnosed him with post-LASIK corneal ectasia in 2009.  Ectasia is a progressive thinning of the cornea, which can cause poor visual acuity and poor visual quality.  Complaints such as double vision, halos, glare, ghosting, star bursts, blurring, and photosensitivity are common.  In this case, the new eye doctor informed his patient that the original TLC surgeon was negligent because the patient was never a suitable candidate for LASIK due to the preoperative condition of his eyes, which included thin corneas and substantial astigmatism.  On average, ectasia can take 16 months to develop after LASIK surgery[1].   In this case, unfortunately for the patient, the time bomb of ectasia had a particularly long fuse, and took almost five years to develop, by which time it was too late for the patient to sue his LASIK surgeon, under his unique circumstances.

In short, lawsuits are not like fine wine.  Generally, legal claims do not improve with time.  Memories fade; witnesses disappear; evidence is lost.  If you think you may be the victim of medical negligence, you should seek prompt legal advice.  Many potential clients explain that they need to take care of their medical crises before they can even think about a lawsuit.  That priority makes sense and is understandable.  But it is equally important to at least learn and understand the statute of limitations that applies to your case, so that it does not expire inadvertently.

What is the true complication rate for LASIK surgery? Who knows?  Last summer, in the New York Law Journal, I reported that depending on the source it varies from 1% to 20%.  There are two explanations for this large discrepancy.

First, most LASIK doctors do not report complications.  Hundreds of patients were injured by Alcon’s defective LADAR 6000 surgical laser, which had to be recalled.  Yet, only a minority of surgeons reported on injuries caused by the defective laser.  Ectasia is a rare complication of LASIK surgery.  Hyperopic ectasia, in farsighted patients, is rarer still. In the medical literature there is only one reported case of hyperopic ectasia.  In my law office, I have two. In neither case did the LASIK surgeon report the complication.  In one case, the ectasia followed 10 operations on one eye.  In the other case, the ectasia followed four operations on one eye.  Obviously, it would help the LASIK community, to say nothing of their patients, if doctors saw fit to report that repeated surgical procedures might be associated with LASIK complications, including hyperopic ectasia. The discrepancy turns on the definition of a complication.  Complications have been recognized to include sensitivity to light, difficulty in night driving, difficulty in reading, double vision, fluctuation in vision, glare, halos, starbursts, dryness, pain and foreign body.

Second, LASIK surgeons do not count dry eyes as a complication of LASIK surgery.  Rather, it is a mere side effect.  However, for patients with severe dry eye, it can be a visually disabling.

In April 2008, the FDA held hearings on LASIK complications.  To date, no report has resulted.  However, last week, the LA Times reported that, at last, the FDA has decided to examine patient satisfaction with LASIK surgery.  With the assistance of the Department of Defense and National Eye Institute, a multi-phase, multi-year, study is planned.

We will have to wait a while to learn whether the real complication for LASIK surgery is closer to 1% or 20%, and we will have to see how narrowly, or broadly, the FDA defines a “complication.”

June 15, 2009

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

Re:    Obama Open To Reining In Medical Suits: Bargaining Chip Seen in Health Overhaul, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robert Pear, A1, June 15, 2009

Dear Madam or Sir:

In the June 15, 2009 edition of The New York Times, President Obama reportedly seeks to immunize doctors from medical malpractice lawsuits if they adhere to standard guidelines.  From the perspective of a LASIK malpractice lawyer, it is a dumb idea.

First, who will draft the guidelines?  Following a $7.25 Million LASIK malpractice verdict in 2005, seven LASIK surgeons drafted a White Paper to promulgate such guidelines for LASIK surgery, to ensure that no such verdict would be duplicated.  In the process, they obliterated a decade of medical knowledge and claimed there were no standards.  They did not do so in the interest of medicine, but explicitly to dampen the “considerable anxiety” among their fellow refractive surgeons following the verdict.

Second, who will serve as the administrative referees?  In a case last week, one seemingly qualified eye doctor actually admitted that his version of the Hippocratic Oath actually meant, in part, “First, harm no ophthalmologist.”

Third, if the profession is incapable of throwing out serial offenders now, who will address this issue later?  In President Obama’s hometown of Chicago, Dr. Nicholas Caro has been sued more than 40 times. Still, he performs LASIK surgery.

Fourth, why would doctors want to trade in their judgment to follow guidelines like robots? The best defense of any medical malpractice claim is the doctor’s exercise of his sound professional judgment.

If the SEC could not protect us from Bernie Madoff, why should the public be comfortable having a similar bureaucracy created to dispense “justice” to victims of medical malpractice?

Respectfully submitted,

Todd J. Krouner

For more information regarding LASIK surgery and LASIK medical malpractice, please visit http://www.krounerlaw.com/ or call 914-769-8700.

PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Nathaniel Chapman and Princess “Shelli” Chapman vs.

Wilson Horsley, M.D., Horsley Eye Center, P.C., and Clear Vision Eye Center, Inc.

United State District Court, District of Massachusetts
Case # 1:09-cv-10325-JGD

DR. WILSON HORSLEY SUED FOR LASIK MALPRACTICE - On March 4, 2009, plaintiff, Nathaniel Chapman, filed suit against Wilson Horsley, M.D., Horsley Eye Center, P.C., and Clear Vision Eye Center, Inc., in the United State District Court, District of Massachusetts, for performing LASIK surgery on Mr. Chapman. Mr. Chapman is a 36-year-old army trained respiratory therapist, who resides in New Braunfels, Texas. On March 22, 2002, Mr. Chapman came under the care and treatment of Dr. Horsley for the purpose of having LASIK surgery on both eyes at the Horsley Eye Center, P.C., and Clear Vision Eye Center, Inc. Despite signs of Mr. Chapman’s pre-existing corneal condition, Dr. Horsley performed LASIK surgery. To compound Dr. Horsley’s error, on April 14, 2006, Dr. Horsley performed a second corrective LASIK procedure, euphemistically referred to as an Aenhancement@, on Mr. both of Mr. Chapman’s eyes at Horsley Eye Center, P.C., and Clear Vision Eye Center, Inc. As a result, Mr. Chapman developed post-LASIK ectasia. Consequently, Mr. Chapman’s vision has suffered severely, and he faces a possible corneal transplant.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Dr. Horsley was negligent in failing to determine that Mr. Chapman was not a suitable candidate for LASIK eye surgery and in performing LASIK eye surgery on Mr. Chapman when said procedure was contraindicated.

The plaintiffs are represented by Todd J. Krouner, from Pleasantville, New York, and Jeffrey N. Catalano of Todd & Weld, LLP, from Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Krouner represents victims of LASIK surgery throughout the United States. Mr. Catalano has extensive experience in litigating medical malpractice actions.

A copy of plaintiffs’ complaint is available at www.krounerlaw.com. For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq., at (914) 238-5800, or Jeffrey N. Catalano, Esq., at (617) 720-2626.

View Compaint: Nathaniel Chapman vs. Wilson Horsley, M.D.,

GAITHERSBURG, Md. – Issues surrounding patient safety, patient satisfaction and even marketing practices associated with LASIK came under intense scrutiny since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Ophthalmic Devices Panel heard public testimony in April in favor of and sometimes vehemently opposed to the surgery.

Based in part on the testimony and the passage of time since labeling information was last reviewed, the panel made recommendations for updating labeling information as well as its own patient information Web site.

Despite some dramatic testimony at the April 25 meeting, the panel was not a “referendum on LASIK,” according to Jayne S. Weiss, MD, who chairs the FDA Ophthalmic Devices Panel.

“It appears to me from hearing what was said today that this really has been a referendum on the performance of LASIK by some surgeons who should be doing a better job,” Dr. Weiss said.

The Ophthalmic Devices Panel heard a number of impassioned presentations opposing LASIK. The testimony ranged from individuals who had suffered adverse LASIK-related complications, therapists and other specialists who had treated patients for depression after adverse complications, optometrists, ophthalmologists and attorneys representing those patients.

Much of the debate surrounded the proposed quality-of-life study to be conducted in 2009 by the National Eye Institute, the FDA, with support from the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The announcement of the survey comes on the heels of syndicated reports in recent months of depression and suicide of patients after LASIK.

Strong calls for change

Todd J. Krouner, JD, argued that the FDA quality-of-life study be carried out independent of the refractive surgery industry, which he sees as embodied in the ASCRS and AAO.

Mr. Krouner, a LASIK malpractice attorney based in Chappaqua, N.Y., said, “Given the self-interest of the LASIK industry and its surgeons, it is respectfully submitted that any review of LASIK safety, satisfaction or study of correlation between bad LASIK outcomes and suicide should not be delegated exclusively to those who have a vested interest in the conclusion.”

Matt Kotsovolos, former chief financial officer of Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., went even further, calling upon the FDA to impose a moratorium on LASIK procedures until more is known about the alleged psychological damage inflicted upon those who have experienced debilitating complications.

Mr. Kotsovolos argued that although the LASIK industry quotes complications rates of 1% to 3%, the real numbers are much closer to 20% to 30%, but these complications are disguised as side effects or symptoms.

“I have met plenty of people who are depressed and considering suicide because of complications that are currently buried in the device labeling and are classified as symptoms or side effects,” he said. “Patients do not want to continue to exist as helpless victims with no solutions and no voice. … I urge the FDA advisory panel to recommend placing a moratorium on LASIK until a proper comprehensive study of long-term LASIK complications and symptoms, including clinical depression, is completed.”

Malvina Eydelman, MD, senior medical adviser on ophthalmic devices to the FDA, defended the still-undefined survey at another point in the meeting, saying, “I can assure you that every precaution is being taken so there are no potential conflicts of interest and everything will be done consistent with FDA and NEI regulations.”

Painful stories from poor outcomes

Much of the public testimony given to the panel against LASIK concerned personal stories of depression, suicide or suicidal ideation and other psychological problems resulting from adverse LASIK outcomes.

Gerard Dorrian talked about his son Colin, who had LASIK as a law student at the University of Michigan. According to Mr. Dorrian, Colin had become intolerant of contact lenses due to dry eye. Mr. Dorrian said Colin suffered painful chronic dry eye after LASIK and committed suicide 6 years after the procedure. He read from a letter that his son wrote, which read, in part, “I cannot accept the fact I have to live like this. I am rotting from the inside out.”

“A patient satisfaction survey does not really give any information about how people are suffering. It doesn’t address issues faced by patients deformed by LASIK,” Mr. Dorrian said.

The panel also heard a presentation from Edward L. Boshnick, OD, who, according to the EyeFreedom.com Web site, specializes in “restoration of vision and comfort lost as a result of refractive eye surgery, keratoconus, pellucid marginal degeneration, extreme dry eye, corneal dystrophies, corneal trauma and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

Dr. Boshnick said he has cared for several hundred post-LASIK patients. Although he cautioned that because of the nature of his practice he does not see “happy post-LASIK” patients, he said he has seen the devastating effects of patients suffering from vision disturbances associated with LASIK.

“I would say that most of my patients are depressed, and many are on anti-depressant medication. From what I have seen and witnessed from many patients, I feel at the present time LASIK presents a significant public health crisis,” Dr. Boshnick said.

Spurred on by reports of unsafe and unethical practices surrounding LASIK eye surgery, the FDA recently convened a panel on LASIK safety. While the panel’s chair says the Gathersburg, Maryland meeting was “not a referendum on LASIK,” the panel did hear testimony in opposition to the popular corrective procedure, listening as patients told about complications including depression, suicidal tendencies, and more.

Present at the hearings was Todd J. Krouner, who pled with the panel to consider outside opinions and leave decisions on LASIK out of the hands of those with vested interests in its outcome. The stories shared by victims ranged from suicidal depression to corneal trauma and chronic dry eye.

Also present were U.S. military officials, who praised LASIK for its use on the battlefield in special forces units. Though the military cites a 0.0% retirement rate due to LASIK complications, other issues, such as LASIK’s aggressive marketing campaigns, were raised at the panel.

Ultimately, the panel recommended that IOP monitoring was appropriate in post-LASIK patients who go on to have cataract surgery. Changes in patient labeling were recommended, as was different FDA website wording emphasizing caution for patients with certain conditions.

However historic this panel on LASIK, its results remain to be seen. As long as the adverse effects of LASIK are kept under wraps, hundreds of thousands of Americans remain in danger. The complications of LASIK can range from low-level blurriness to dry eye so severe that suicide seems like the only option. With LASIK complication rates as much as 29 percent higher than reported by the industry, it is all too clear that consumers aren’t getting the real story on LASIK.

If you’ve been injured by a negligent LASIK procedure, don’t suffer alone. Call the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner today for a free, confidential phone consultation.