Nicholas Caro

Chicago, Illinois

A State Agency FINALLY did something Right!!!

State agency reprimands Chicago eye doctor

Physician is prohibited from doing Lasik surgeries

SOURCE

Nicholas Caro, M.D., medical director of St. George Corrective Vision Center in Chicago. Caro, is an ophthalomogist who has been sued dozens of times for botching Lasik eye surgeries, but never has been disciplined by the state. (Handout  / June 24, 2009)

A state regulatory agency is barring a Chicago ophthalmologist from performing Lasik eye surgeries in Illinois, one of a number of disciplinary actions taken against the doctor on Friday.

After finding that Dr. Nicholas Caro had engaged in unprofessional conduct and gross negligence, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation suspended his medical license for 30 days, placed him on probation for a minimum of 3 years and banned him from performing procedures aimed at changing the curvature of the cornea, which includes Lasik surgeries.

The agency also fined him $10,000, the maximum allowed per violation.

A Tribune story in July reported that Caro had been sued almost 50 times for medical malpractice in Cook County since the late 1990s. The story revealed that the state’s chief medical prosecutor, Lisa Stephens, recommended in 2008 that Caro’s medical license be “suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined” because the ophthalmologist had allegedly mishandled Lasik surgeries and failed to properly manage treatment of post-operative complications.

Yet Caro continued to perform eye surgeries, highlighting ongoing concerns about the aggressiveness of the watchdog agency charged with punishing bad doctors.

On Friday, Stephens said the disciplinary actions will protect the public.

“We addressed the issues that were part of our formal complaint and we addressed them the best way we could,” Stephens said. “If he can’t do those things anymore, then future patients can’t be hurt by him.”

Attempts to reach Caro for comment were unsuccessful.

Lasik is an elective surgical procedure in which a laser is used to change the shape of the cornea, the clear covering of the front of the eye. Lasik, which stands for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, is intended to reduce a person’s dependence on glasses or contact lenses. The procedure is one of the most common cosmetic surgeries performed in the U.S.

According to the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Co., which insures about 30 percent of U.S. ophthalmologists, about 75 percent of the specialists who practice at least 25 years have three or fewer lawsuits or malpractice claims in their career.

The Tribune checked the records of more than a dozen other Lasik doctors in the Chicago area and found none had been sued for malpractice more than 12 times; most had far fewer lawsuits.

Of the almost 50 lawsuits against Caro, some 29 were filed in the past decade.

Lawsuits, depositions and documents compiled by state regulators describe patients repeatedly seeking treatment from the doctor for painful or worrisome complications.

One of those patients, Joseph Smith, was pleased to learn of Caro’s punishment.

“I’m glad that he doesn’t have the chance to hurt somebody else like he messed up my eyes,” said Smith, who is suing Caro. “It’s good that they finally did something about him.”

Under the conditions of Caro’s probation, he is required to hire a licensed physician, approved by the regulatory agency, to oversee his practice.

In addition to the lifetime ban on doing refractory procedures, such as Lasik, Caro will not be allowed to perform intraocular procedures in his medical office, which include cataract surgery, corneal transplantation and refractive lens exchange or clear lens extraction.

Caro has said that he has performed about 25,000 eye procedures in 25 years.

dshelton@tribune.com

From the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation

2/22/2010
Information found on:
NICHOLAS C CARO MD, 36061321, Chicago, IL

Action Discipline
Start Date
Discipline
End Date
Reason For Action
Fine 02/19/2010 due to unprofessional conduct in performing refractive surgery – permanently prohibited from performing intraocular surgery and procedures, including LASIK, in the state of Illinois.
Suspension 02/19/2010 03/21/2010 due to unprofessional conduct in performing refractive surgery – permanently prohibited from performing intraocular surgery and procedures, including LASIK, in the state of Illinois.
Probation 03/22/2010 due to unprofessional conduct in performing refractive surgery – permanently prohibited from performing intraocular surgery and procedures, including LASIK, in the state of Illinois.

Dr. Nick Caro’s attempt to sue a former patient for $2Mil FAILED!

Dean Kantis explains his story at http://www.lifeafterlasik.com/.

Case Dismissed!!

Nick Caro, MD  & Saint George Vision Laser SIEZED!

 

Lasik lawsuits: Disciplinary proceedings lag against Chicago doctor (July 5, 2009)

TRIBUNE WATCHDOG: State lets Dr. Nicholas Caro practice despite lawsuits, more than $1 million in damages

“My license has never been disciplined, and I have never had any problems with the department [of professional regulation]” Nick Caro stated.

SOURCE

Karen Thiel just wanted to see well without wearing contact lenses.

Instead she became the victim of a botched procedure that seriously injured her cornea and resulted in persistent pain, a series of eye infections and permanent vision loss. Ten years after her surgery, the now-retired clerical worker says she still has trouble seeing, even when wearing glasses.

The same year, in 1999, Nicholas Pucek went through a similar ordeal. Too much of his cornea was cut away during a corrective procedure on his left eye, and a flap of the cornea dislocated. Pucek sought treatment for complications more than two dozen times over a six-week period and eventually received a cornea transplant.

Juries awarded both Thiel and Pucek hundreds of thousands of dollars after the two underwent Lasik surgery at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Caro. The Chicago ophthalmologist has been sued almost 50 times in Cook County since the early 1990s for medical malpractice, with 29 of the suits filed in the last decade.

Related links

The state’s chief medical prosecutor investigated Pucek’s case and recommended more than a year ago that Caro’s medical license be “suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined.” The formal complaint alleges that Caro mishandled Lasik surgeries and failed to properly manage treatment of post-operative complications.

Yet no disciplinary action has been taken and Caro continues to operate on people’s eyes, highlighting ongoing concerns that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is not aggressive enough in pursuing bad doctors.

Daniel Bluthardt, director of the department’s division of professional regulation, declined to comment on Caro’s case but said disciplinary proceedings for physicians take time. “It’s not unusual for a case, from start to finish, to take as long as two years” to resolve, he said.

The agency’s complaint, filed in March 2008, was based on a report received a year earlier and was amended in July and October to include additional cases. A formal hearing has yet to be scheduled.

Reached by phone at St. George Corrective Vision Center on West Peterson Avenue where he is medical director, Caro blamed the allegations of malpractice on a litigious society.

“A lot of doctors get sued,” he said. “I’m a high-volume surgeon and do a lot of surgeries, and they’re cosmetic. You’re going to get sued. Other doctors who do Lasik have the same problem.”

Lasik is an elective surgical procedure in which a laser is used to change the shape of the cornea, the clear covering of the front of the eye. Lasik, which stands for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, is intended to reduce a person’s dependence on glasses or contact lenses. The procedure is one of the most common cosmetic surgeries performed in the U.S.

Caro said he has performed about 25,000 eye procedures in 25 years

According to the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company, which insures about 30 percent of U.S. ophthalmologists, about 75 percent of the specialists who practice at least 25 years have three or fewer lawsuits or malpractice claims in their career.

The Tribune checked the records of more than a dozen other Lasik doctors in the Chicago area and found none had been sued for malpractice more than 12 times; most had far fewer lawsuits.

“My license has never been disciplined, and I have never had any problems with the department [of professional regulation],” Caro said before cutting the phone interview short because, he said, he does not talk to reporters.

Illinois’ division of professional regulation has been the subject of criticism in recent years for being slow and overly lax in taking action against incompetent and dangerous doctors.

An Illinois auditor general’s report in 2006 identified a slew of problems, including inadequate staffing, monitoring deficiencies, inadequate and inconsistent disciplinary actions and excessive time prosecuting cases. According to the report, half of the investigations conducted in fiscal 2004 and 2005 took longer than five months to complete, the agency’s standard.

The report said, “Failure to follow up on complaints and complete investigations in a timely manner may result in a physician who has violated the Medical Practice Act not being timely detected and disciplined.”

This year the Tribune reported that the regulatory agency has not disciplined physicians associated with a medical practice now known as Homefirst, despite lawsuits over three decades in which parents alleged the doctors made harmful and sometimes fatal mistakes.

In Caro’s case, lawsuits, depositions and documents compiled by state regulators describe patients repeatedly seeking treatment from the doctor for painful or worrisome complications. Some patients returned to Caro a dozen or more times.

Chief medical prosecutor Lisa Stephens wrote in her complaint that Caro had “committed acts and/or omissions which constitute gross negligence in the practice of medicine.” In Pucek’s case, she wrote, Caro failed to perform Lasik surgery properly, to evaluate and treat Pucek’s post-surgical complications and to refer Pucek to another specialist promptly.

In 2005, a jury awarded Pucek more than $800,000 for pain and suffering, loss of a normal life and future medical expenses, court records show. The division of professional regulation’s review of Caro was triggered after that verdict was automatically forwarded to the state.

Reached by phone, Pucek said he is reluctant to discuss his case now that it has been settled in court.

“Ten years later I still have headaches when I read and I’m not able to do some of the things I was able to do prior to the Lasik surgery,” he said.

Karen Thiel testified in her court case that Caro ruined her eyesight, forcing her to retire early because she could not see well enough to do her clerical job with the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. She was 50 when she underwent Lasik in 1999.

In 2007, a jury awarded Thiel 500,000 for past and future pain and suffering, and for past and future loss of a normal life.

In an interview, she said she now has trouble seeing even when wearing glasses.

“I trip over things constantly,” said Thiel, who relocated in May from southwest suburban Wilmington to Florida. “I don’t see things in front of me. I don’t drive at night. I don’t drive in places where I don’t know where I’m going because I can’t read signs until I’m too close to make a turn.”

Joseph Smith, 61, of Rogers Park says he also had repeated problems after a Lasik procedure in 2006 that he thought would make it easier to do his job as a painter. According to a lawsuit he filed last year, Caro’s surgery left Smith with a scarred, irregular cornea that cannot be completely corrected. He required a lens removal and lens implantation.

Smith said that until another surgeon repaired some of the damage, his vision was so bad that he could no longer read the labels on paint cans.

“You go back to this guy and he’s supposed to straighten everything out and you’re worse than before,” Smith told the Tribune.

Caro’s practice attracted the attention of federal regulators in 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration said his clinic was one of three using unapproved laser equipment to treat vision problems such as nearsightedness and astigmatism. (The other clinics were in Georgia and Florida.) The agency removed the equipment from his office.

“Such unapproved lasers pose a risk to patients because their use could potentially cause serious eye injury,” the agency said in a statement at the time. “The manufacturer and eye clinics had all ignored prior warnings from FDA.”

Thiel said she learned of the FDA inspection and other lawsuits only after she hired a lawyer. Thinking of Caro working on people’s eyes makes her livid.

Said Thiel: “Why does he still have a license? That’s what’s so upsetting.”

Bluthardt said his agency disciplines 275 to 300 doctors a year with punishments that range from reprimands to license revocation.

“Generally I think we get it right and the process works pretty well,” he said.

dshelton@tribune.com

 

Some comments posted on the bulletin board following the article:

 

sara, United States – they should cut his eyes out! blinding people and still aloowed to practice? what a **** PIG! he should off himself and do the world a favor!

 

Four Eyes, Evanston, IL – I’ll keep my glasses, thank you.

Dr. Caro hurts every other ophthamoloigst by giving Lasix a bad name. There are many of us who won’t mess with this high tech stuff when we can’t trust the licensing board to do its job and take medical licenses away from those who are a danger to society.

 

Josie, Oak Park, IL – 10 years ago, Lasik surgery was a new surgical procedure in medical field. If a patient chooses to have a surgery that’s only been around for a couple of years, the research is not going to be there for optical techniques and how to treat complications. I personally would never allow someone to operate on my eye, especially not for something cosmetic, unless he or she has done that exact procedure hundreds to thousands of times. This surgeon may have performed thousands of other eye surgeries, but ten years ago he probably not performed that many Lasik surgeries. There are risks to EVERY surgery, and sometimes there are complications. If you choose to go under the knife for cosmetic purposes, you should deal with the fact that you chose to put your eyes at risk for something to go wrong.

 

Mark Winshel, Oakland, CA – Most “regulatory” boards do not actually protect the public, and although they pretend to. In other words, the real and actual job of most of the so called “regulatory” boards is to protect the incompetents, drunks, criminals, con men, and rip off artists they pretend to regulate.

More specifically, since the public wants protection, therefore the regulatory boards go thru their charades of pretending to uphold standards, and altho the real and actual function of most of the regulatory boards is to protect and cover for the insiders and the more politically connected members of the old boys networks and the professions they pretend to regulate.

So as to further maintain at least a little of bit of credibility concerning their statements that their primary reason for existence is to protect the public, therefore the regulatory boards do every now and then to take some strong action against one of the less powerful and less politically connected members of their profession. However the big boys the regulatory boards normally give a free pass, and in fact also put a lot of effort into protecting, no matter how outrageously they act.

 

joe, United States – The Department of Professional Regulation is a joke. Doctors have always gotten a pass. The reasoning, the don’t want to take a doctors livelihood away. On the other hand, if you were a registered nurse, this joke of a department, wouldn’t think twice about suspending or revoking your license. I am a registered nurse, and I could tell you stories about doctors who should never have had a license, much less being able to keep one. They continue to harm unsuspecting people every-day. These departments are suppose to protect people, but the truth of the matter, they don’t and never will.

 

sara, United States – joe wrote:
The Department of Professional Regulation is a joke. Doctors have always gotten a pass. The reasoning, the don’t want to take a doctors livelihood away. On the other hand, if you were a registered nurse, this joke of a department, wouldn’t think twice about suspending or revoking your license. I am a registered nurse, and I could tell you stories about doctors who should never have had a license, much less being able to keep one. They continue to harm unsuspecting people every-day. These departments are suppose to protect people, but the truth of the matter, they don’t and never will.

ya got that right! i have horror stories of my own. worked in that industry for years. doctors are CRAZY!

 

Alex, Danbury, CT – You have to do your due diligence on doctors the same way you should do homework before buying a house, a car or taking a job. I had LASIK a year ago – done by a reputable doctor – and it’s been flawless.

 

DSI – Our politicians have found a kindred spirits: incompetent and greedy. Remember, you work for the government (taxes), they do not work for you.

 

Annaliese, Saint Charles, IL – My husband went to Dr. Caro 6 years ago. Dr. Caro was the most condescending bully I’ve ever met. He was rude & offensive to his staff, talked openly about identified patients (HIPAA violations), verbally dimissed patient concerns, and was generally a loud and self-centered jerk. When his office began to call a few years ago for my husband to make a follow up appointment I put my foot down and told them to not call us again. I can’t believe such an inscrupulous and hurtful doctor still has a license. Illinois has failed us. Again. Thank God my husband wasn’t a victim. We feel very lucky!

 

Reader – The department of professional regulation has significant problems from top to bottom.

One of their favorite games is changing licensing requirements for certain professions (LPC lately), but not updating their website or any other information. When a person sends in their application and $150 fee, they are rejected, even though they qualify under the published requirements. Then the department of professional regulation keeps your money.

 

Haley, Riceboro, GA – It is the responsibility of the state to protect its people from doctors (if you can even call Dr. Caro that) like this.

Allowing him to continue to practice is negligence on their part.

 

bribery state, Chicago, IL – It all depends on whether you have cash and spend it on the politicians who protect the Quacks,

Corruption runs strong an deep her in SW-illinois.

 

one party state, Chicago, IL – DEMOCrats CONTROL everything inthis state. Another democratic victim, vote for someone else next time, what did you really think they would do the right thing? FOOLS you are

 

Krishnan, Chicago, IL – one party state wrote:
DEMOCrats CONTROL everything inthis state. Another democratic victim, vote for someone else next time, what did you really think they would do the right thing? FOOLS you are
But Caro’s mess started under Big Jim Thompson and continued under Jim Edgar and George Ryan. I do not believe ANY of those would be confused for Pat Quinn and Democrats or democratic minded folks!

 

Way Difrernt, Chicago, IL – I refused to accept the popularity of this “procedure” until stories like this were released. I believe I was right and still refuse. Eyeglasses are A-o.k. with me. The cost of “lasik” surgery seems to have been lowered and lowered to Walmart prices throughout the years. I think there was a reason.

Chiropractors, cosmetic dentists, law offices and mortgage offices seem to be on every street corner now.

Remember the day when you had a respect for the above? You had to drive to them. Now, they have advertisements under your windshield wiper.

 

Mac, United States – Gee, I thought all those lawsuits were frivolous and it was just the greedy trial lawyers trying to get rich. At least, that’s what all the doctors and their insurance companies tell me.

 

Pam, United States – I’ve complained to the Dept. of Professional Regulation and, I can tell you they do NOTHING. Overly lax is being kind. I’ve received nothing but double talk. They seem more concerned about damaging the doctors ability to earn money. Complain about a nurse and they don’t do anything either. A nurse at West Suburban Hospital left a 2 inch gash in my mother’s leg which became infected and prolonged her hospital stay and at 95 yrs old created a host of problems. The nurse said her nail “scraped” my mother’s leg in the ER when she was being put on a cart to go for a CT scan. I was never told about it by the nurse, my mother complained her leg hurt and, kicked off the sheet. That’s when I found a blood soaked bandage. The State did nothing, saying my mother was old and delicate and these things happen. Quinn could save money by closing that department. The department and their investigators are a joke.

 

Kieran Taylor, United States – My daughter lost vision in her right eye and will someday have to have a false eye as hers continues to deteriorate. She was examined by an eye doctor who claimed, without surgery, she would become infected and lose her eye. He then changed his mind and explained that she should not receive surgery (siting eye drops would be enough). She then got an infection that almost killed her and totally destroyed her eye. I could not even sue this doctor because the panel of medical peers that reviewed the case before it could go to trial were all his friends and working associates. Our rights as medical consumers are almost non-existent. Its time for a populist uprising. LET’S PLAY SURGERY ON THE DOCTORS!!!!!

 

da spellin homegirl, United States – Oh, come on. I’m sure they are keeping an eye on him.

 

an opinion, Algonquin, IL – more proof that greed and ego make doctors have a false sense of greatness. A great doctor is one who goes and heals sick people because they have to. Their heart and soul is in helping people. The industry only chases and bills for what ever they can, REGARDLESS of a patients needs. My wife is a nurse and the last person she ever wants to see is a doctor. I had a great doctor who now is a cowering blubber of a beaten down healer who has spent so much time and money conforming to the industry, I can no longer see him due to him having to play the system first, heal second. We have gotten what we deserve. Greed is bringing the whole country down, and again, we truly deserve it.

 

Hmm, Harwood Heights, IL – He’s a “volume” surgeon, which means he probably takes a lot of patients that shouldn’t be having the procedure.

 

Bill, Naples, FL – I moved out of Illinois two years ago. The Chicago along with the State politicians are by far the nations worst at solving problems. Illinois holds the record of Governor’s in jail. The City of Chicago is a political joke. Taxation without representation is their motto.

 

Eye doctor faces additional complaints – Update July 14, 2009

SOURCE

 

The agency that regulates physicians in the state has filed new charges against a Chicago ophthalmologist who has been sued for medical malpractice almost 50 times in Cook County yet has not faced discipline, the Tribune learned today.
The formal complaint against Dr. Nicholas Caro by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation includes charges by four patients who allege they were seriously injured during Lasik eye surgery, plus two patient complaints added on Friday.

One of the patients in the latest complaint told the agency in November that the eye doctor negligently performed Lasik surgery the previous year, resulting in extensive additional treatment that included a cornea transplant.
In the amended formal complaint against Caro, the agency said Caro failed to properly diagnose and evaluate the patient’s keratoconus, a pre-existing eye condition that should have ruled him out as a candidate for Lasik.
The state chief medical prosecutor said Caro “committed acts and/or omissions that constitute gross negligence in the practice of medicine.”

Caro, who has managed to avoid professional discipline even though lawsuits against him have been mounting, was the subject of a Tribune watchdog investigation earlier this month.

The chief medical prosecutor, Lisa Stephens, recommended more than a year ago that Caro’s medical license be “suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined” because Caro had mishandled Lasik surgeries and failed to properly manage treatment of post-operative complications.

Caro has 30 days to respond to the latest agency complaint.

The Caro case has dragged on for more than a year, highlighting ongoing concerns that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is not aggressive enough in pursuing bad doctors.
First filed in March 2008, the agency’s complaint was based on a report received a year earlier and was amended to include additional cases. The latest complaint is the third amendment.

Lasik is an elective surgical procedure in which a laser is used to change the shape of the cornea, the clear covering of the front of the eye. Lasik, which stands for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, is intended to reduce a person’s dependence on glasses or contact lenses.

The procedure is one of the most common cosmetic surgeries performed in the U.S.

According to the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company, which insures about 30 percent of U.S. ophthalmologists, about 75 percent of the specialists who practice at least 25 years have three or fewer lawsuits or malpractice claims in their career.

The Tribune checked the records of more than a dozen other Lasik doctors in the Chicago area and found none had been sued for malpractice more than 12 times; most had far fewer lawsuits.

Reached by phone last month at St. George Corrective Vision Center on West Peterson Avenue where he is medical director, Caro blamed the allegations of malpractice on a litigious society.

“A lot of doctors get sued,” he said. “I’m a high-volume surgeon and do a lot of surgeries, and they’re cosmetic. You’re going to get sued. Other doctors who do Lasik have the same problem.”

Caro’s practice attracted the attention of federal regulators in 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration said his clinic was one of three using unapproved laser equipment to treat vision problems such as nearsightedness and astigmatism. (The other clinics were in Georgia and Florida.) The agency removed the equipment from his office.

“Such unapproved lasers pose a risk to patients because their use could potentially cause serious eye injury,” the agency said in a statement at the time. “The manufacturer and eye clinics had all ignored prior warnings from FDA.”

In Caro’s case, lawsuits, depositions and documents compiled by state regulators describe patients repeatedly seeking treatment from the doctor for painful or worrisome complications.
At least one patient returned to Caro almost 30 times.

 

LAWSUITS – … v. CARO

In addition to Dean’s lawsuit listed above, there have been 50+ lawsuits filed against Dr. Caro. Please note that although some or most of these cases may have been dismissed for ‘lack of merit’, or withdrawn, the fact these cases were filed in the first place warrants some questioning of one’s professional ability (?). The state of Illinois seems to think so…

01/29/1993 – 1993-L-001199 – CALAMARAS L vs. CARO NICHOLAS

08/29/1997 – 1997-L-010344 – BOUBOUREKAS vs. SAINT GEORGE CORRECTIVE V

11/04/1998 – 1998-L-012699 – WARD vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

09/12/2000 – 2000-L-010443 – SMITH B vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD DBA

11/16/2000 – 2000-L-013302 – BARRIOS vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

12/28/2000 – 2000-L-015069 – PRATT vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

02/09/2001 – 2001-L-001625 – GUERRERO vs. CARO NICHOLAS C

02/09/2001 – 2001-L-001687 – RIVERA vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

11/02/2001 – 2001-L-014122 – THIEL vs. CARO NICHOLAS MD

11/15/2001 – 2001-L-014829 – KLOTTER vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

04/10/2002 – 2002-L-004498 – CALOMINO vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

10/15/2002 – 2002-L-013104 – FARINA vs. CARO NICHALAS C MD

03/14/2003 – 2003-L-003167 – CARDENAS vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

04/11/2003 – 2003-L-004416 – BRITO vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

07/17/2003 – 2003-L-008683 – DEMMA vs. CARO NICHALS C MD

12/08/2004 – 2004-L-013719 – WEINSTEIN S vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

05/06/2005 – 2005-L-005064 – LAPORTA R vs. CARO NICHOLAS MD

03/24/1997 – 1997-L-003437 – KOULIS vs. CARO NICHOLAS MD

03/02/1995 – 1995-L-004971 – CALLAS vs. CARO NICHOLAS MD

02/16/2001 – 2001-L-001954 – KOLK vs. CARO NICHOLAS MD DBA

09/13/1999 – 1999-L-010231 – CARVAJAL vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

03/07/1995 – 1995-L-005945 – HINOJOSA vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

10/25/1999 – 1999-L-011972 – WEINSTEIN S vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

10/25/1999 – 1999-L-011973 – KEHOE S vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

05/24/2004 – 2004-L-005836 – ZITO vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

07/02/1998 – 1998-L-007784 – MITCHELL P vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

12/21/1998 – 1998-L-014726 – CARDENAS E vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

01/10/2000 – 2000-L-000305 – DELAGARZA G vs. CARO NICHOLAS DR

03/02/1995 – 1995-L-005296 – GENOVESE E vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

08/14/2000 – 2000-L-009285 – WILLIAMS D vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD DBA

03/05/1999 – 1999-L-002588 – SALINAS O vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

03/24/1999 – 1999-L-003332 – IRVAN E vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

04/16/1999 – 1999-L-004249 – BONGIOVANNI R vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

05/16/2000 – 2000-L-005602 – HARMS C vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

08/04/2004 – 2004-L-008791  – WEINSTEIN S vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

09/10/2004 – 2004-L-010333  – RAEVALO RAUL  vs. CARO NICHOLAS C

06/28/2001 – 2001-L-007797  – PUCEK N vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

06/21/2001 – 2001-L-007419  – PUCKEK N vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

10/19/2004 – 2004-L-011829  – RIVERA J vs. CARO NICHOLAS C.,M.D.

07/13/2000 – 2000-L-007952  – YAGODA M vs. SAINT GEORGE CORRECTIVE V

02/03/1998 – 1998-L-001349  – CASTROVILLARI N vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

12/13/1996 – 1996-L-014530  – KOPINSKI R vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

12/10/1996 – 1996-L-014340  – SALINAZ A vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD

11/22/2005 – 2005-L-013284  – TEAGUE K vs. CARO NICHOLAS C MD NC

05/06/2005 – 2005-L-005064  – LAPORTA R vs. CARO NICHOLAS MD

12/01/1992 – 1992-M5-002287 – ANESTHESIA 1-2-3 vs. CARO NICHOLAS

07/12/1996 – 1996-M1-139514 – UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR vs. CARO NICHOLAS C

06/02/1994 – 1994-M1-132141 – ALCON SURGICAL INC vs. CARO NICHOLAS M D

06/24/1994 – 1994-M5-001376 – COZZIE F vs. THE SAINT GEORGE C

01/27/2006 -  2006-L-000973 – THIEL vs. CARO NICHOLAS / ST. GEORGE EYE

Dr. Nick Caro BBB and Attorney General’s Office Complaint by Dean Andrew Kantis :

Complaint Filed Against Dr. Nicholas Caro with the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation August 17th, 2005 Attn: Investigator Joe Annerino (Medical Enforcement) Illinios Department of Professional Regulation James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite#9-300 Chicago, Illinios 60601 w: 312-814-4526 F: 312-814-3145 Thank you for your reply to my initial complaint #200504961 against…

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on August 17, 2005 08:15 AM

Dr. Nicholas Caro Sued for Medical Malpractice by “N.K.”

Plaintiff claimed that after undergoing LASIK surgery on her right eye on April 30, 1999, she experienced difficulties with a serious candida fungal infection which she followed-up with him on several occasions, which consisted of cap cleanings, prescription of several antibiotics and a steroid, until the following June 11th, her last visit. She subsequently had to undergo a corneal transplant.

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on December 3, 2004 06:41 PM

Dr. Nicholas Caro Sued for Medical Malpractice by “S.W.”

These husband and wife plaintiffs are claiming that during one of two, or possibly both bilateral LASIK surgeries performed by Dr. Nicholas Caro on September 22, and October 5, 1999, metallic particles were left embedded in both of Mrs. W’s corneas. Although her treatment subsequent to the discovery of the alleged particles was not yet disclosed in this file at the time it was copied, it is possible that she had to undergo corneal transplantation.

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on March 19, 2004 06:47 PM

Dr. Nicholas Caro Sued for Medical Malpractice by “R.C”

Plaintiff alleged that during her treatment consisting of multiple refractive surgeries to both eyes at St. George Corrective Vision Center between August of 1993 and September of 1997, Dr. Nicholas Caro and/or other personnel affiliated with him, among other things, performed two surgeries that have a well known poor success rate (hexagonal keratotomy and/or automated lamellar keratoplasty), failed to properly inform her about the experimental nature of each surgery performed which ultimately necessitated corneal transplantation, and also didn’t inform her that an excimer laser, apparently manufactured by PDI Laser, was not approved by the FDA and that the FDA had denied Dr. Caro’s application to use it, and went ahead and used it on her anyway.

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on August 25, 2003 08:20 AM

Dr. Nicholas Caro Sued for Medical Malpractice by “E.L.I.”

Plaintiff alleged that on March 27, 1997, she underwent bilateral LASIK eye surgery without being given adequate informed consent regarding possible problems with her connective tissue disorder, rheumatoid arthritis and dry eyes. As a result she allegedly had severe loss of vision in both eyes from “corneal melting” and there was a period of about two and one-half months when she was legally blind.

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on July 23, 2003 09:12 AM

Dr. Nicholas Caro Sued for Medical Malpractice by “G.D.” and “M.H.” :

Plaintiff alleged that two weeks after Dr. Nicholas Caro performed LASIK surgery on both of his eyes on January 2, 1998, his left eye began to turn red, vision became decreased, the pupil turned white, and due to a corneal infection, developed a corneal ulcer.

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on March 31, 2000 08:25 AM

U.S. Marshalls Seize “Homegrown” Laser Owned by Dr. Nicholas Caro

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES May 15, 1997 Food and Drug Administration 2098 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 WARNING LETTER Nicholas C. Caro, M.D. 4145 W. Peterson, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60640 Dear Dr. Caro, The Food and Drug…

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on May 15, 1997 11:58 AM

Dr. Nicholas Caro Sued for Medical Malpractice by “E.G.”

Plaintiff claimed that during the second of two lamellar keratectomy (LK) surgeries on his left eye on August 26, 1994, Dr. Nicholas Caro cut too deeply into it causing severe damage to the cornea and iris. He also claimed that Eye Technology manufactured a defective machine that was used during the procedure.

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on August 26, 1994 09:25 AM

Dr. Nicholas Caro Sued for Medical Malpractice by “G.C.”

Plaintiff alleged that on February 23, 1994, Dr. Nicholas Caro, among other things, improperly performed a lamellar keratoplasty on him without giving proper informed consent by warning him of the risks involved which include blindness and also failed to inform him of alternatives. He is now blind in his left eye.

Posted in Refractive Surgery News on February 3, 1994 08:34 AM

August 17th, 2005 Attn: Investigator Joe Annerino (Medical Enforcement) Illinios Department of Professional Regulation James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite#9-300 Chicago, Illinios 60601 w: 312-814-4526 F: 312-814-3145 Thank you for your reply to my initial complaint #200504961 against St. George Corrective Vision Center/Dr….

Read more…