SOURCE

The Wild, Wild West Of LASIK

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

See more on Dr. Caro HERE

Copyright 2009. Incisive Media US Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. New York Law Journal Online
Article printed from: http://www.nylj.com

LASIK Eye Surgery: Litigation Challenges and Issues

Todd J. Krouner
07-15-2009

LASIK eye surgery is one of the most common forms of surgery in the United States. The overwhelming majority of patients are satisfied. However, for those who suffer complications, the resulting visual disability can be life altering. This article examines the common bases of liability in LASIK litigation.

Plaintiff verdicts from around the country confirm that the pain and suffering associated with poor quality vision, such as blurring, halos, double vision and impaired night vision have substantial seven-figure value. The hope among plaintiff lawyers is that such verdicts will influence high-volume LASIK surgeons to be less aggressive when dealing with borderline candidates for this elective surgery.

Complications

The surgical complication rate is disputed and underreported. The industry suggests this rate is below 1 percent. However, a recent article asserts that the rate of complications following LASIK surgery, such as halos, glares, dry eyes, and impaired night vision, is approximately 20 percent.¹ The disparity occurs because LASIK surgeons do not count dry eyes and poor night vision, as well as other light phenomena, as "complications," but rather as known and accepted risks of LASIK surgery.

One of the most serious complications from LASIK surgery is post-LASIK ectasia. Ectasia is the bulging of the cornea, which can result in the excessive thinning of the cornea and compromise its structural integrity. It can occur naturally, and when it does, it is referred to as keratoconus.² The term post-LASIK ectasia is used to refer to ectasia that was laser induced. Ectasia is progressive in nature, and usually will continue to worsen over time. In most cases, the ectasia will manifest within the first year following LASIK surgery. However, a leading article by J. Bradley Randleman, M.D., and others, from Emory University (the Randleman Study), teaches that post-LASIK ectasia may not develop until 45 months after the initial LASIK surgery.³ For claims arising in New Jersey, this is not a problem because the statute of limitations runs from discovery of the injury. By contrast, New York has no such discovery rule. Consequently, the delayed onset of symptoms can be fatal to a case, absent continuous treatment with the LASIK surgeon.

Keratoconus, and its early or sub-clinical predecessor, forme fruste keratoncus (FFK), are contraindications to LASIK surgery. The Randleman Study concluded that post-LASIK ectasia is most often caused by the clinician's failure in screening signs of keratoconus or FFK, or by surgical error in cutting the patients' cornea too thin, and breaching the structural integrity of the cornea. Recent studies suggest that 95 percent of the time ectasia occurs for known reasons, such as the surgeon missing pre-operative warning signs, or cutting the cornea too. Consequently, ectasia cases should be treated as evidence of presumptive malpractice.

In addition to cases involving contraindications and surgical negligence, some LASIK lawsuits arise with patients whose pupil size is larger than the optical zone of the surgery. In Post v. University Physicians, Inc., 2002 WL 32832041 (Ariz. Super. 2002), the plaintiff, who was a pilot, was awarded a $3.4 million verdict when the surgeon failed to recognize the plaintiff's large pupil size.

Other LASIK litigation involves lifting and creating the flap; maladministration of postoperative steroid drops giving rise to glaucoma; varying auto-immune disorders, thin corneas, corneal dystrophy, and central islands (discussed below) due to poor laser maintenance or product defect.

Product Defects

With today's laser technology, central islands are another injury, like ectasia, that rarely just happen for no known reason. The term is used to describe elevations in the central treatment zone of the cornea that can occur if the laser does not remove enough tissue in this area. The 'island' consists of a small mound of corneal tissue that can interfere with vision. Initially, central islands were an unfortunate complication of the early technology that resulted from the uneven application of the laser's energy. In recent years, this complication was thought to have been eradicated due to advances in laser technology. Today, if central islands occur, they can be assumed to be either a result of a product defect, or of the poor maintenance and cleaning of the laser itself. In September 2007, Alcon Laboratories recalled its LADAR 6000 surgical laser, because of reports that its laser created central islands.

Even though the Supreme Court has preempted product liability claims for medical devices in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008), claims against product manufacturers can succeed under at least three theories. These include failure to manufacture the product in accordance with the specifications submitted to and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), failure to follow FDA protocols, and violations of parallel state law consumer fraud statutes. In March 2009, the Medical Device Safety Act was introduced to overturn Riegel, and reinstate injured patients' rights to recover for faulty medical devices.

In addition to Alcon's defective surgical laser, patients have developed central islands where a well-designed laser was not maintained properly. The laser needs to be tested and calibrated periodically. If this is not done, saline-like fluid has been known to splash on the laser optics and impair the even flow of the laser energy, and has also resulted in central islands. Central islands are one example of a corneal injury that, if severe enough, has no present cure or effective treatment.

Effects on Individuals

Vision has two components, acuity (quantity) and quality. Post-LASIK complications can distort the patient's vision, may impair visual acuity and will affect visual quality. Even if the patient can read the letters on the Snellen eye chart, often it is accompanied with double vision, blurring, ghosting, halos and various light phenomena including photosensitivity, difficulty with night vision, and starbursting.⁴

In addition, there are a small, but alarming, number of patients who have committed suicide allegedly due to LASIK complications. Although the industry asserts that suicide is a multi-factoral issue, and that no such association between LASIK and suicide can be demonstrated, there exists a clear correlation between visual impairment and depression.⁵ As other surgeons are required to assess a patient's mental health before surgery, at minimum, it would be prudent for LASIK surgeons to do the same.

Possible Treatments

Treatment is difficult for patients of LASIK malpractice. Glasses do not help. Contact lens therapy is thwarted by dry eyes. Intacs offer another hope in stabilizing vision. Intacs are artificial lenses implanted into the cornea in an attempt to reshape the cornea. In the worse case, a corneal transplant surgery is necessary. Recently, the FDA has approved an experimental protocol to arrest, but not cure, post-LASIK ectasia. It involves riboflavin drops and ultraviolet (UV) light. The hope is that the combination of riboflavin and UV light will, on a microscopic level, increase the levels of collagen in the cornea to strengthen the cornea and prevent further deterioration.

Jury Verdict Data

Juries in New York, and around the country, are recognizing the substantial value associated with loss or impairment of vision. At the same time, it is difficult to explain to a jury how problems with visual quality can ruin a patient's life, when the patient retains a reasonable visual acuity. Pictures of these qualitative complaints, from the patient's eye doctor, or from the patient's environment can be quite helpful.

In July 2005, a Manhattan jury awarded an investment banker $7.25 million in Schiffer v. Speaker, where the author represented the plaintiff. The doctor was found negligent in screening the patient, who had pre-operative FFK. The pain and suffering award alone was $3 million. The award was affirmed in Schiffer v. Speaker, 36 A.D.3d 520 (1st Dept 2007). Last month, in a case where the author represented the plaintiff, a Manhattan jury returned a verdict of approximately $5.6 million in another ectasia case. The pain and suffering component in that case was also $3 million. Devadas v. Niksarli, Index No. 107637/07 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) The post-trial process is at an early stage.

In 2006, a jury in Nassau County returned a pain and suffering award of $3 million (which was reduced to $2.1 million post-trial). Gropack v. Donnenfeld, Index No. 8476/02 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 2007) (J. Mahon). No meaningful claim for loss of income was reflected in that verdict.

Prior to the Schiffer case, a pilot was awarded $3.4 million for post-LASIK visual complaints. Post v. University Physicians, Inc., 2002 WL 32832041 (Ariz. Super. 2002). Last year, a $2.1 million settlement was reported in a LASIK malpractice case in New Jersey, against Dr. Joseph Dello Russo. Russell Ben-Ali, "Lasik patient received $2.1M: Eye surgeon settles suit, does not admit fault," The Star Ledger, 07/08/08.

In Crawford v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 48 (1st Dept. 1993), the plaintiff was awarded $1 million for pain and suffering for an injury to only one eye. In Cofsky v. Goosey, 2002 WL 32119471 (Texas Dist. 2002), the plaintiff received a settlement of $1.75 million. In Johnson v. LCA Vision, Inc., 285 A.D.2d 971 (1st Dept. 2001), the New York Appellate Division held that a $1 million award for future pain and suffering for post-LASIK visual impairment in only one eye was reasonable.

Multimillion-dollar verdicts have made LASIK surgeons less aggressive in operating on patients whose screening is suspicious for FFK. In 2005, in response to the Schiffer v. Speaker verdict, several ophthalmologists wrote and published an article in an attempt to reset the standard of care. Binder, P, Lindstrom, R, et al., "Keratoconus and Corneal Ectasia After LASIK," Journal of Refractive Surgery, Nov/Dec 2005, p. 749.

Retaliation

Finding a LASIK surgeon who is willing to testify on behalf of an injured patient is almost impossible. Yet, without a reputable LASIK surgeon, the case cannot proceed. One of the most significant impediments to retaining a LASIK expert to testify is retaliation. In Post, supra, TLC's founder, Jeffrey Machat, M.D., testified in favor of the patient.⁶ As a result, his refractive surgeon colleagues retaliated against him, cursed him, verbally assaulted him, and he was forced to resign from TLC's advisory board. In other cases, experts have had invitations to present at professional conferences revoked and been threatened with baseless ethics complaints.

Consequently, extraordinary efforts must be made to protect the identity of the few well-credentialed experts who are willing to testify on behalf of plaintiffs. Protective orders should be considered to insulate experts from retaliation.

FDA Advisory Panel Hearings

In April 2008, the FDA convened hearings in response to patient requests for a review of the safety and effectiveness of LASIK surgery. As there have been increasing complaints of dissatisfaction and suicide in connection with LASIK surgery, the FDA assembled members for the Ophthalmic Device Panel to hear from various constituents. In response, the FDA has commissioned a LASIK Study Task Force to evaluate quality of life after LASIK. To date, there has been no report. Incidentally, all of the ophthalmologists on the Advisory Panel wore glasses.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's view in Riegel, supra, the FDA is ineffective. The recalled LADAR 6000 surgical laser was approved without input from its Ophthalmic Device Panel. State licensing agencies are indifferent to complaints of serial wrongdoers. A LASIK surgeon in Chicago has been sued 43 times, and the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board has seen no merit to patient complaints. Governmental oversight is myopic.

Todd J. Krouner is a principal at the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner, in Pleasantville, N. Y. He represented the plaintiffs in 'Schiffer v. Speaker' and 'Devadas v. Niksarli' which are discussed in this article. Leigh Ryan, a law clerk at the firm, assisted in the preparation of this article.

End notes:

1. Bailey M.D., Zadnik K. "Outcomes of LASIK for myopia with FDA-approved lasers," Cornea. 2007 Apr; 26(3):246-54.
2. For the purposes of this article, the terms "keratoconus" and "post-LASIK ectasia" will be referred to by the term "ectasia."
3. Randleman JB, et. al. "Risk Factors and Prognosis for Corneal Ectasia after LASIK," Ophthalmology. 2003;110:267-275 at 269.
4. See, e.g., Abby Ellin, "L.ASIK Surgery: When the Fine Print Applies to You," N.Y. Times, March 13, 2008.
5. Ingrid U. Scott, M.D. et al., "Quality of Life in Low Vision Patients and the Impact of Low Vision Services," 128 American Journal of Ophthalmology 1 (1999).
6. TLC is a national provider of laser facilities. It is a public company whose shares trade on the NASDAQ. Tiger Woods is one of their celebrity spokesmen. TLC was also a codefendant in the Schiffer case.

This article is republished with permission from the July 15, 2009, issue of the New York Law Journal,

June 11, 2009

PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Johnson Devadas and Saramma Devadas v. Kevin Niksarli, M.D.,

Manhattan LASIK Center, PLLC, and NewSight Laser Center, PLLC

New York County, Supreme Court of the State of New York

Index # 107637/07

            $5.6 MILLION LASIK EYE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE VERDICT.  On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, a jury in New York City returned a verdict of nearly $5.6 million against Kevin Niksarli, M.D., for LASIK malpractice.  The verdict consisted of an award of: $2,360,000 for the patient’s loss of income; $3,100,000 for the patient’s pain and suffering, including loss of life’s enjoyment; and $120,000 for the patient’s wife’s claim for loss of her husband’s services and consortium.  This is the second largest verdict ever for LASIK malpractice.

            The lawsuit, Devadas v. Niksarli, Index No. 107637/07 (Supreme Court New York County), was commenced on May 31, 2007.   The trial began on May 20, 2009, and lasted 10  days.  The jury of three men and three women deliberated for 2 and one-half days.  The Honorable Doris Ling-Cohan presided over the trial.

LAW OFFICE OF TODD J. KROUNER

                                                                                                                                                                                                              140 BEDFORD ROAD

                                                                                                                            PLEASANTVILLE, NEW YORK 10570

                                                                                                                                               (914) 769-8700

             TODD J. KROUNER*                                                                                                                 OF COUNSEL                

                        ???                                                                                                                                       ???

        DOMINIQUE N. FERRERA                                                                                               EVELYN OCHMAN ROSEN

         STACEY M. RANCOURT                                                                                                                    ???

                         ???                                                                                                                                      

     *ADMITTED IN NY AND NJ                                                                                                                                                                    

December 16, 2008

PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Johnson Devadas and Saramma Devadas v. Kevin Niksarli, M.D.,

Manhattan LASIK Center, PLLC, and NewSight Laser Center, PLLC

New York County, Supreme Court of the State of New York

Index # 107637/07

            PROTECTIVE ORDER GRANTED IN LASIK MALPRACTICE ACTION. In a LASIK malpractice case scheduled for trial in New York, in January 2009, the trial judge, the Honorable Joan B. Carey, Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, granted plaintiffs motion for a protective order, shielding the identify of plaintiffs LASIK malpractice expert.  In a decision dated December 8, 2008, Judge Carey held:

When viewed collectively, the evidence submitted by plaintiffs demonstrates a concrete risk that the expert ophthalmologist would be subjected to annoyance, expense, embarrassment, and disadvantage, if identified before trial.  The culture of the LASIK industry, as described in plaintiffs various submissions, coupled with the fact that plaintiffs expert has already personally born the brunt of antagonistic comments from colleagues for representing patients in LASIK malpractice claims, leads the Court to find that a protective order is warranted.

            Judge Carey was persuaded by plaintiffs submission which included an article in Ophthalmology News, reference to internet websites, and a recent slander action brought against a LASIK expert in Florida.

            As a separate matter, plaintiffs recently filed a cross motion to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages as a result of Dr. Kevin Niksarli's alteration of the treating records.  Plaintiffs' forensic expert, Albert Lyter, III, Ph.D., found that:

(1)        the last line on Dr. Niksarli's treating note for Johnson Devadas, namely R/B/A/ of LASIK Sx explained to pt including > , which treating note was purportedly created on March 25, 2004, was created at a time different than the rest of the notations on that page (Exhibit A-1);

                        (2)        the last line in his treating note for Saramma Devadas, namely, R/B/A of LASIK expl. to pt. incl. but not limited >, which treating note was purportedly created on March 24, 2004, was created at a time different than the rest of the notations on that page (Exhibit B-1);

                        (3)        the addendum to Saramma Devadas's note (Exhibit B-1) is missing, and by letter dated September 10, 2008, defendants' counsel state "there isn't a handwritten addendum after the page indicating R/B/A of LASIK expl. To pt incl. but not limited to. The chart you were given is the complete chart in Dr. Niksarli's possession";

                        (4)        the addendum to Mr. Devadas's treating note (Exhibit A-1) was artificially aged in a manner that is not consistent with the normal storage of medical records (Exhibit A-2); and

            That motion is still pending before the court.

            A copy of Judge Joan B. Carey's Order is available at www.krounerlaw.com.  A full set of plaintiffs' motion papers are available at www.krounerlaw.com.  For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq. at tkrouner@krounerlaw.com or at (914) 238-5800. 

Any action YOU take as a result of being threatened with a lawsuit can be used against you in a court of law:

The judge ruled in the defamation action brought against me that because I changed my website back to its original state when threatened with a lawsuit, along with correspondence between attorneys, that my actions constituted an agreement/contract. The Pennsylvania Superior Court's opinion.

I sent the Nevyases attorney a letter of intent right after receiving the cease and desist request, and abided by the letter I sent.

Based on my experience, if you are threatened with lawsuit, I would suggest you speak to an attorney prior to considering any changes.

What will you do if the unexpected happens?

You end up with a complication that cannot be "fixed" and realized that you were not properly informed of the risks, or you think you have suffered malpractice.....

It's a tactic well-known, repeated countless times, that your surgeon will probably tell you "Just give it another six months" or "The cornea heals very slowly and you just need to be patient".  Sometimes, that's enough to keep you pacified until after the statute of limitations (during which you can file a lawsuit) runs out.  Once you realize that you are not getting better, it's too late to sue.

Even if you know there's been malpractice, where are you going to find a doctor who will take a stand against his colleagues and to some degree, the refractive surgery industry?  Remember, they don't like to admit that this surgery has disabled many, many patients.  They prefer to remain in a state of denial and pretend that LASIK never harms anyone because it's an elective and UNNECESSARY surgery.  The worse LASIK and other procedures begin to look, the less money they make.  Plain and simple, this is strictly about MONEY.  Refractive surgery is completely unregulated and it's become a free-for-all for surgeons who can take a one-day class and call themselves a LASIK surgeon.  Then as they gain experience, they double it by calling each patient "two cases" because they have two eyes!

What you can expect to hear:

"I don't see any malpractice here."

"Your doctor did nothing wrong."

"That's not exactly what I said," (when your attorney calls the doctor to verify what he told you).

"There is new technology coming that can fix this, so there are no damages here."

"He is an excellent surgeon and I know he fully informs his patients."

Chances are that you will not find an expert witness near your home.  Finding one is the most difficult part of litigation, but once you have a reputable expert who says that malpractice occurred, you've got a case!

 Court Ruling Endangers First Amendment Rights of Consumers Who Use the Internet to Complain About Companies

For Immediate Release:      Contact: Paul Levy (202) 588-1000

June 27, 2006        Robert Yule (202) 588-7703

      WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Pennsylvania resident left legally blind after lasik eye surgery should be allowed to identify his doctors on a Web site warning the public about the risks of the surgery, Public Citizen said in an appeal submitted today on his behalf in a Pennsylvania state court.

      The appeal, which was filed in Pennsylvania Superior Court in Philadelphia, seeks to reverse an injunction against Dominic Morgan forbidding him from criticizing doctors Herbert Nevyas or Anita Nevyas-Wallace on any Internet Web site.

LASIK Lawsuits - Patients and their lawyers take aim - Read more

Lawsuits Against Patients Backfire on Litigious Surgeons - Read more

Study identifies risk factors for refractive surgery malpractice lawsuits and claims - Read more

Refractive Surgical Volume Boosts Legal Risk - Read more

'Many people have had Lasik treatment, but there's little information about how many suffer complications or damage to their eye as a result.' - Read more - Subscription Required

Jury awards man $3 million

SOURCE

MALPRACTICE: The man had sued Northern Refractive Surgery Center for the care and treatment he received.

BY MARK STODGHILL

NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

A St. Louis County jury determined that Northern Refractive Surgery Center was negligent in its care and treatment of a Duluth man and awarded him more than $3 million in damages.

Informed Consent almost always offers you absolutely NO PROTECTION!  This is to protect the doctors from lawsuits.  Most of the risks may be spelled out, and even though the doctor(s) may tell you "there shouldn't be anything to worry about", there's ALWAYS SOMETHING TO WORRY ABOUT!  You never know what COULD happen, and once you sign the informed consent, that's it!

Letter printed in the J Cataract Refract Surg, Vol. 26, October 2000

The editorial by a journal editor was overdue. I consider it particularly appropriate that simultaneous bilateral laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is subjected to serious questioning. One can only marvel at the naive trust by patients in modern medicine and in their surgeons and the similarly naive convictions of surgeons that simultaneous bilateral LASIK is what the patients need.

It is not purely a safety issue; simultaneous bilateral surgery violates the principles of informed consent. Nobody can deny that experience with the first eye will render the patient better informed for consenting to the procedure being performed on the second eye. Simultaneous bilateral surgery deprives the patient of the possibility of gaining a better refracative outcome in the second eye and of judging the visual benefit of the surgery by comparing the operated eye +/- residual spectacle or contact lens correction with the corrected unoperated eye. Finally, simultaneous bilateral LASIK preempts a possible decision by the patient to choose another type of refractive surgery for his/her second eye, such as photorefractive keratectomy, intracorneal ring segments, or a phakic intraocular lens, or to postpone surgery on the second eye until better procedures become available if the result of LASIK on the first eye proves unsatisfactory. He/she may not have to wait very long.

Klaus D. Teichmann, MD

We prepare simulations for use in the courtroom. Please call for free consultation.

Intacs and other IOL’s, recently approved by the FDA are not without its problems either. Doctors who have vested interests in these companies have made millions from LASIK.

More on INTACS...

FDA Warning

FDA Minutes

More on STAAR #1

More on STAAR #2

If you've been damaged, and are seeking legal recourse for those damages, you may be quite surprised, and overwhelmed...

Each case is different. From simple to complex (as was mine), and depending on the courts, facts may necessarily mean nothing. They are easily dismissable depending on the judge's understanding, and you can still be left with no case.

To give you a better understanding, my case as an example:

In 2000 I filed a med mal lawsuit. I believed at the time because so much of my case was dismissed, that the courts didn't want to handle this case because it was so complex. I was also advised that arbitration was the more feasible route to go.

I lost the arbitration! Again, I believe because of the complexity of the case, and the lack of understanding of facts. Facts the courts, and the arbitrator didn't want to acknowledge or understand.

So who's been sued?

Go to just about every LASIK website and read the testimonials from people who are "happy and content" with their "great LASIK experience". What you won't find or hear about are the procedures that went wrong, or the number of lawsuits:

Major LASIK chains LVI, TLC (and doctors associated with). There are MANY names to add (listed below are a few), Your best bet would be to check your with local or federal courts, or websites such as:
 

Disclaimer: I do not purport the doctors named to be unsavory, unscrupulous, or otherwise. It is not my intention to slander, defame, cause libel, or otherwise. Doctors are people...PEOPLE ARE NOT PERFECT.

As Angry Patients Vent Online, Doctors Sue to Silence Them

By DAVID KESMODEL

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE - September 14, 2005

Doctors have long accepted that their patients share opinions about the care they have received, knowing that satisfied patients will refer others while those not so happy with their bedside manner might encourage prospective customers to seek treatment elsewhere. But when William Boothe, an ophthalmologist in Texas, saw that one disgruntled former patient was posting his complaints on the Internet, he launched an aggressive response. He sued for libel and other claims, and earlier this year a state judge ordered the material removed from the Web.  (See documents below)

THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SILENCED

Dean Kantis, sued by Dr. Nick Caro (OVER 60 LAWSUITS, license FINALLY suspended) for his website: Lifeafterlasik.com

My case, which can now be posted: NEVYAS v. MORGAN - see the Nevyas Eye Associates section.

Brent Hanson, sued by Dr. William Boothe for his LA$IKQUACK.COM website: BOOTHE v. HANSON - PDF Documents

OMIC Publication Archives - Refractive Claims Up, Payouts Remain Low - Read more

If you are a lawyer who is interested in handling LASIK litigation cases, and would like to be listed here, please EMAIL ME

DO YOU NEED A LAWYER...

Who specializes in LASIK litigation? 

Law Offices of Todd J. Krouner

Temporary Contact Info:
140 Bedford Road
Pleasantville , New York 10570
Tel. No. (914) 769-8700

Steven A. Friedman, Esquire

Law Offices of Robert A. D'Iorio & Associates, PLLC

In or around Philly?

Philadelphia's Civil Docket Access system can be found HERE.

Enter last name of doctor and starting date (at least 5-10 years prior) to search for. (example: enter morgan under last name, and 01-jan-2000, and any cases with the name morgan will show from jan 1, 2000. first names (dom) will narrow the search.)