Chappaqua Personal Injury Blog

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

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.

---

[1] Randleman, J.B., et al.“Risk Factors and Prognosis for Corneal Ectasia after LASIK.” Ophthalmology 2003; 110:267-275.

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.,