The LASIK industry & the FDA have conspired since LASIK's inception to purposely withhold information vital to the public in making a truly informed LASIK decision. With Lasikdecision.com, The hope is to show you what the industry and FDA would not and did not even think of doing until LASIK casualties started speaking out, and yet, they still did NOTHING.
Dr. Joseph Dello Russo PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 28 December 2005 12:00

Bergenfield, New Jersey & New York/Brooklyn, New York

16 Lawsuits (and Counting?) This one for $2.1 Mil

Notice they emphasize patient "signed a lengthly informed consent". This is how doctors for the most part are getting away with damaging people!

Why do these LASIK eye doctors have a criminal spammer making websites for them?

SOURCE

Dr. William Boothe
Dr. Robert Maloney
Dr. Dello Russo

The following video shows one of the records kept by Spamhaus - ROKSO:

http://www.spamhaus.org/Rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK6778



 

The spammer sells a service to hide negative comments from the public. Unfortunately for his clients, he does a poor job at that. He has tried to hide what people have said about the doctors. Back in 2006, a blogger at matchent.com observed how Stanley worked for doctors.

He has a lot of doctors (dentists, cosmetic surgeons, some "LASIK" guys etc.) as customers, a quick search implicates some of them are trying to hide cases of malpractice and tax fraud.

Dello Russo Attacks...

On April 20th, 2007, I received an email from my hosting company stating my website was shut down for the following complaint filed by an attorney representing Dello Russo:

Hello,

We have received a formal DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notice regarding allegedly infringing content hosted on your site. The specific items in question are as follows:
      
http://www.lasikdecision.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=173
&Itemid=47


The party making the complaint (Joel G. MacMull, Esq., Staff Legal Consultant, INC Business Lawyers, Suite 203 -1544 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 1H8, Tel: (604) 272 -6960, Direct: (604) 913-8383, Fax: (604) 272-6959, Website: http://www.incorporate.ca/ - on behalf of Dr. Joseph Dello Russo), claims under penalty of perjury to be or represent the copyright owner of these works. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), we have removed access to the files in question.

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap5.html#512

Note: Due to the database-intensive nature of your site, we had to disable it in its entirety. You may reinstate it once you can ensure that the content at the above URL has been removed.

The excerpts that were listed below (Click Read More link) have been removed even though the excerpt listings are no different than what any internet search engine does. The url's are still provided so that you may read the full text of the comments made for each category. Might I recommend spell checker for the good doctor...

Lasik patient receives $2.1M - Dello Russo settles suit but does not admit fault

  SOURCE

 A Bedminster man who alleges he was left legally blind by Lasik surgery reached a $2.1 million settlement with the prominent eye surgeon who performed the procedure, his attorney said yesterday. James Dell'Ermo, 47, sought to rid himself of cumbersome eyeglasses and contact lenses he used for his nearsightedness, said his attorney, David Mazie of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland. While his claim could not be verified last night, Mazie said he believed the settlement was the largest in a Lasik case in New Jersey history and one of the largest ever in the country. Mazie said his client underwent Lasik surgery in the Bergenfield office of Joseph Dello Russo, an eye surgeon known in part for his advertising campaign and promotions. But the procedure left Dell'Ermo legally blind, with vision worse than 20/400 without corrective lenses, Mazie said. Dell'Ermo filed a malpractice lawsuit in Ber gen County Superior Court and a settlement was made public yesterday. "It's getting to the point where he has to have corneal transplants," to correct his post-surgical condition, Mazie said. John Tomaszewski, an attorney for Dello Russo, said the settlement does not mean an admission of fault.

"This settlement was arrived at with the understanding of all parties, in part to avoid the uncertainty and the rigors of a long jury trial," said Tomaszewski, who represented Dello Russo on part of the settlement. "And in no way, shape or form does the New Jersey Eye Center or Dr. Dello Russo concede or admit to any improper treatment or wrongdoing."

But it's not for everyone, Mazie said. The lawyer said Dell'Ermo's condition of steep corneas should have ruled him out as a candidate for Lasik. He said the procedure caused a condition known as "ectasia," or bulging of the cornea, in both of Dell'Ermo's eyes.

"We're starting to see that a lot of people who have undergone Lasik and are undergoing Lasik at the moment are not properly screened," Mazie said.

N.J. Supreme Court says doctors, lawyers can't be sued for consumer fraud

Dello Russo #1

YM v Dello Russo - Medical/Podiatric Malpractice - 122587/2001

Dello Russo #2

Seems Being A LASIK Doctor CAN Be Somewhat Controversial...

Dello Russo #3

CARNES COMMUNICATIONS v Dello Russo

PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY v Dello Russo

This is an action to recover for defendants' false description, false designation of origin and false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C § 1125(a), deceptive trade practices and false advertising under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, invasion of privacy under Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law and unfair competition under New York common law, for which plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages against defendants, based on the unauthorized and intentionally deceptive use of his name by competitors in a way that will irreparably injure plaintiff and mislead the public in an area of great public concern -- individual health and welfare.

Insurance company ordered to pay $15.3

An insurance company for a prominent Bergen County, New Jersey eye surgeon must pay $15.3 million to cover malpractice claims made by 16 former patients, a Superior Court judge has ruled.

From the Appellate Div. Superior Court:

"Eventually, Dr. Dello Russo became the subject of a number of medical malpractice actions brought by patients who alleged that he and Eye Center personnel had been negligent in the performance of this surgery. The appeal before us implicates thirteen of these suits. Princeton, relying on the language we set forth earlier, declined coverage in these malpractice actions to individual physician defendants although it did agree to provide a defense to the Eye Center in each of these actions under a reservation of rights."

Date: 7/17/2007

Case Style: New Jersey Eye Center, P.A. v. Princeton Insurance Company

Case Number: A-0204-05T5

Judge: Wefing

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on appeal from the Superior Court of Bergen County

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Kern, Augustine, Conroy & Schoppmann, attorneys for respondent New Jersey Eye Center, did not file a brief.

Defendant's Attorney:

Mark A. Aronchick, admitted pro hac vice, and William S. Wachenfeld argued the cause for appellant (Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin and Mendes & Mount, attorneys; Mr. Aronchick, Michael Lieberman, and Mr. Wachenfeld, on the brief).

Bruce H. Nagel argued the cause for respondents Debra Cucopolous, Greg Cucopolous and Patricia Dodge (Nagel, Rice, attorneys; David A. Mazie, Adam M. Slater and Mr. Nagel, of counsel and on the brief).

David A. Mazie and Adam M. Slater argued the cause for respondents Donna DeAngelis, James DeAngelis, James Dell'Ermo, Lisa Dell'Ermo, Daniel J. DeSilvestro, Thomas Donnelly, Patricia Kushner and Steven Kushner (Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, attorneys; Mr. Mazie, Mr. Slater and Bruce H. Nagel, of counsel and on the brief).

Alexander G. Benisatto appeared for respondent Yuri Mykolayevych (Shapiro & Croland, attorneys; Mr. Benisatto, on the brief).

Elizabeth Eilender appeared for respondent Tony Del Presto (Winne, Banta, Hetherington, Basralian & Kahn, attorneys; Ms. Eilender, on the brief).

Peter J. Eliopoulos appeared for respondent Richard Peirano.

Description:

Princeton Insurance Co. ("Princeton") appeals from an order for judgment entered by the trial court in a declaratory judgment action. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we reverse.

That declaratory judgment action was filed in connection with a coverage dispute relating to a series of medical malpractice actions pending against Joseph Dello Russo, M.D., a physician licensed to practice medicine in New Jersey who specializes in ophthalmology. Dr. Dello Russo was insured under a professional liability policy issued by Interstate Insurance Co. with a coverage limit of three million dollars. Dr. Dello Russo was also the principal of New Jersey Eye Center, P.A. ("Eye Center"), which was insured under a policy issued by Princeton. The Princeton policy provided coverage of six million dollars per incident, with an aggregate coverage of eight million dollars. The Princeton policy contained the following endorsement:

Your employees, students, authorized volunteer workers, members of the Board of Trustees and executive officers are insureds while acting within the scope of their duties. We won't cover physicians and surgeons, physician assistants, surgical assistants, dentists, residents in postgraduate year 2 or higher, nurse anesthetists, perfusionists, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse surgical assistants, podiatrists, chiropractors or psychologists, unless otherwise scheduled.

Dr. Dello Russo developed an extensive practice performing lasik surgery.1 In this procedure, the surgeon, using an excimer laser, lifts up the top layer of a patient's cornea, makes a flap and then reshapes the cornea underneath. The aim of the procedure is to provide better visual acuity for the patient, in many cases making the use of glasses or contact lenses unnecessary. In his deposition, Dr. Dello Russo testified that in the period 1999-2000 he charged approximately fifteen hundred dollars per eye and was seeing approximately one hundred patients a week.

Eventually, Dr. Dello Russo became the subject of a number of medical malpractice actions brought by patients who alleged that he and Eye Center personnel had been negligent in the performance of this surgery. The appeal before us implicates thirteen of these suits. Princeton, relying on the language we set forth earlier, declined coverage in these malpractice actions to individual physician defendants although it did agree to provide a defense to the Eye Center in each of these actions under a reservation of rights.

There is no doubt that the progress of these malpractice suits was acrimonious, hindering both attempts to resolve the matters and to conclude the discovery necessary to make them ready for trial. At one point, Dr. Dello Russo sued one of the plaintiffs' attorneys for that attorney's conduct with respect to this litigation. Dello Russo v. Nagel, 358 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2003). Indeed, we are informed that at another point certain participants in a deposition session had to be physically restrained from attacking each other. Later, during the trial that led to the judgment on appeal, the attorney representing Dr. Dello Russo's personal interests refused to participate in any proceedings at which a particular plaintiff's counsel was present.

With trial dates looming on the horizon for a number of these cases, the trial court, at the request of counsel, held a series of conferences in an attempt to resolve all these matters. Those attempts, however, were unsuccessful, and in January 2004, Eye Center filed a declaratory judgment action against Princeton, seeking a judgment that Princeton was obligated to defend and indemnify it in these malpractice actions for the actions of its physicians, surgeons and technicians. Eye Center named as "parties in interest" to this declaratory judgment action the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs who had asserted claims against Dr. Dello Russo.

The coverage issue in the declaratory judgment action was presented to the trial court by way of motions for summary judgment returnable before a trial judge other than the judge who had been involved in attempting to resolve the cases. Faced with the prospect of a judicial ruling on the coverage issue, and uncertain as to what the ruling would be, the attorneys involved in the malpractice litigation accelerated settlement discussions.

From the record before us, we can conclude that extensive settlement discussions took place during most of the day on March 11, 2004, the day before the summary judgment motions were returnable. During the course of these discussions, the trial judge who had initially been involved in attempting to resolve the lawsuits provided assistance, but at some point during the afternoon, it appeared that the discussions had come to a dead end and would not be revived, certainly not in the immediate future. At that point, the attorney representing Princeton left the courthouse.

After his departure, however, settlement discussions resumed. The participants included the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs, the attorney that Dr. Dello Russo had retained to represent his personal interests in the course of these various proceedings and the attorney from Interstate. Eventually, these attorneys came to an understanding, which they placed upon the record. Although the transcript contained in the record before us does not indicate the time that these proceedings commenced, it is evident from the remarks made at various points that it was well after the normal close of court business. It is also evident that there was no attorney for Princeton present during any part of these proceedings.

The attorneys who participated in these discussions agreed to the following terms:

• Plaintiffs would dismiss their individual actions and file one new action in which all would join and to which no statute of limitations defense would be asserted. The advantage to this from Dr. Dello Russo's perspective was that he would only have to report the settlement of one malpractice claim, as opposed to multiple claims.

• Eye Center, Dr. Dello Russo, William Kellogg M.D. and Steven Meneve (the latter two were employees of Eye Center who had been named as defendants in the various suits) would, pursuant to Griggs v. Bertram, 88 N.J. 347 (1982), assign to plaintiffs all of their rights under Princeton's policy insuring Eye Center.

• Plaintiffs agreed they would seek recovery only from Interstate and Princeton. All plaintiffs, with the exception of Giardina, agreed they would not seek recovery from the personal assets of Drs. Dello Russo or Kellogg or Steven Meneve and would fully release them, and Eye Center and its employees and agents, from all liability.2

• In return, Eye Center, and Drs. Dello Russo, and Kellogg agreed to waive their rights to contest liability and proximate causation with respect to each of the plaintiffs' various claims.

• Further, they agreed to participate in binding, non-appealable arbitration before a retired Superior Court Judge which would address only the issue of damages and at which the only witnesses would be the individual plaintiffs.

The attorneys reconvened the following morning, prior to argument on the summary judgment coverage motions. The attorney for Princeton was present and placed on the record his objections to this settlement and his position that it was in no way binding upon Princeton. He maintained that by entering this settlement, Eye Center, through Dr. Dello Russo, had breached the duty of loyalty and cooperation owed to Princeton. The trial judge who had presided over the settlement discussions rejected Princeton's objections, however.

Later that morning, the summary judgment motions in the declaratory judgment action were argued, and several days later, on March 16, the judge hearing that aspect issued a written opinion setting forth his findings and conclusions as to why Princeton was obligated both to defend and indemnify Eye Center for the vicarious liability of its physicians, surgeons and technicians. That ruling is not challenged before us on appeal.

The judge involved in the settlement discussions later entered an order confirming the settlements. That judge attached to the order a rider containing the following provision.

The arbitration will address the issue of damages. Subject to the discretion of the arbitrator, the issue of liability and proximate causation will be addressed only at the election of the plaintiff, and if raised will be uncontested. The plaintiff in each matter may produce expert opinion in writing only, on any and all issues, and the defendant may produce expert opinion in writing only, on the issue of damages only.

Prior to the arbitrations that were called for under the settlement agreement, plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the other individual defendants and proceeded solely against Eye Center and Dr. Dello Russo. At the start of the arbitration proceedings, a question arose as to whether the proceedings would be transcribed; when the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs objected, the arbitrator ruled that none of the proceedings were to be transcribed. Princeton, because of its position that the purported settlement was ineffective and not binding upon it, did not participate in the arbitrations. Dr. Dello Russo's personal attorney did participate and, we are informed, did cross-examine the plaintiffs with respect to their various injuries. There was, however, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, no contest before the arbitrator on the question of either liability or proximate cause as to any of the plaintiffs.

Prior to the arbitrations that were called for under the settlement agreement, plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the other individual defendants and proceeded solely against Eye Center and Dr. Dello Russo. At the start of the arbitration proceedings, a question arose as to whether the proceedings would be transcribed; when the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs objected, the arbitrator ruled that none of the proceedings were to be transcribed. Princeton, because of its position that the purported settlement was ineffective and not binding upon it, did not participate in the arbitrations. Dr. Dello Russo's personal attorney did participate and, we are informed, did cross-examine the plaintiffs with respect to their various injuries. There was, however, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, no contest before the arbitrator on the question of either liability or proximate cause as to any of the plaintiffs.

Thereafter, the arbitrator issued individual awards that ranged in amount from one hundred seventy thousand dollars to three million dollars. Following those awards, there were seven days of hearings in the Superior Court, Law Division, before another trial judge on the question of whether the process employed pursuant to the settlement was the product of collusion and whether the amounts awarded by the arbitrator were fair and reasonable. The witnesses included the attorneys who represented the various plaintiffs and the attorney who represented Dr. Dello Russo. Princeton presented the testimony of William Davis, who was senior vice president for claims for Medical Inter-Insurance Exchange (MIIX); Princeton proffered Davis as an expert in the valuation of medical malpractice claims, but his testimony was received only pursuant to R. 1:7- 3.

At the conclusion of those proceedings, that judge placed an oral decision on the record, finding no collusion or bad faith and that the awards themselves were fair and reasonable. He found that the settlement represented "a reasonable business decision" and utilized "a fair process for determining the amount of money each claimant would be entitled to receive." An order for judgment was then entered, entering judgment in favor of the respective plaintiffs and against Princeton for the amounts awarded in arbitration, less a pro rata adjustment for the payments made by Interstate. Princeton now appeals from that judgment.

On appeal, Princeton argues, in essence, that the procedure adopted did not comply with the policies expressed in Griggs v. Bertram, 88 N.J. 347 (1982), and Pasha v. Rosemount Memorial Park, Inc., 344 N.J. Super. 350 (App. Div. 2001), certif. denied, 171 N.J. 42 (2002). Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Princeton, having abandoned its insured, should not be heard to complain when the parties thereafter adopt a procedure designed to produce a result that is reasonable to all the parties. Respondents point to Burd v. Sussex Mutual Insurance Co., 56 N.J. 383 (1970). The trial judge who presided over the hearings that led to the judgment on appeal agreed with that position. Having reviewed this record carefully, we are unable to agree, however, with the underlying premise that Princeton had abandoned its insured.

* * *

Outcome: The judgment under review is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None

Read More

Clinic sued in failure to pay

Read More

Is It Marketing?  

Dr. Dello Russo offers much advice on...

The Internet and other websites

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2006_08_18s13c34c15

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2006_09_05s08c04c52

 

That's odd, I make not one cent from my websites...

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2006_07_28s12c29c46

 

On Dry Eye

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2003_10_13s14c32c05

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2002_05_31s10c43c29

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2002_11_11s09c47c48

 

Thin Corneas, Pupil Size, Night Vision, and A Few More

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2006_09_01s09c05c27

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2003_11_28s08c07c53

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2006_09_01s08c31c45

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2006_07_28s12c20c54

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2002_11_11s09c56c01

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2002_04_12s14c55c33

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2006_09_01s08c43c37

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2006_08_14s20c43c15

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2003_02_19s10c38c56

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2002_12_14s08c30c27

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2002_11_19s10c02c55

 

http://www.lasikfaq.com/display.php?q=2002_09_04s08c17c43