Mary Sehhi v. Sam N. Nikou, Nikou Eye Surgical and Medical Center Inc.
Published: Apr. 15, 2003 | Result Date: Mar. 17, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC070908 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Howard A. Slavin
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Thomas Hanscom
(medical)
Charles Aronberg
(medical)
Defendant
Jonathan I. Macy M.D.
(medical)
Violet Ito
(medical)
Facts
On April 29, 2000, the 70-year-old plaintiff, was seen by the defendant, a board certified ophthalmologist who also practiced the sub-specialty of vitreo retinal surgery. The plaintiff claimed that she came to the defendant because she was unhappy with the heavy weight of the glasses that she wore to see at a distance. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a cataract in each eye, with the cataract in the right eye being worse than the left. The defendant offered cataract surgery and noted in his records that he discussed the risks, complications and alternatives of cataract surgery with the patient, who was accompanied by her son, and that all conversations were conducted in Farsi, the plaintiff's mother tongue. The plaintiff returned to the defendant in January 2001, not having disclosed that she had visited an optometrist in November 2000 who could not correct the plaintiff's vision with glasses and who gave the plaintiff the cards of two ophthalmologists to consult regarding cataract surgery. During the plaintiff's first visit with the defendant, her best corrected visual acuity was 20/40 in each eye. The defendant also performed a glare test which reduced the vision in the right eye to 20/80 and low contrast testing which reduced the vision in the right eye to 20/60. The plaintiff had complained of an inability to read, sew, thread needles and of decreasing and blurry vision. The plaintiff returned to the defendant on May 3, 2001. Further testing revealed a slight drop in the plaintiff's existing vision and the plaintiff indicated a desire to undergo cataract surgery, first on the right eye. Surgery took place on May 24, 1001 at Midway Hospital. During the surgery, a tear occurred in the posterior capsule of the lens and vitreous came through that tear. The defendant addressed these matters properly and the patient was released from the outpatient surgical center the same day. The plaintiff was seen post-operatively on three occasions with no abnormal findings though the plaintiff testified during trial that she was experiencing pain throughout the post-operative course. On July 9, 2001, the plaintiff reported a sudden darkness in her vision and the defendant diagnosed a retinal detachment. Since the defendant is also a trained retinal specialist who spends 50 percent of his practice in diseases of the back of the eye, the defendant repaired the retinal detachment the same day at Midway Hospital. The defendant continued to have follow up visits with the plaintiff after the retinal detachment surgery. Those visits revealed that the retina remained attached. On July 31, 2001, the plaintiff had noticed a problem in her vision and went to an ophthalmologist, Dr. Kerry Assil for a second opinion. Dr. Assil diagnosed a re-detachment of the retina and referred the patient immediately to retinal specialist, Dr. Thomas Hanscom. Dr. Hanscom saw the patient the same day. The patient and her daughter told Dr. Hanscom that prior cataract surgery and retinal detachment surgery had been performed in New York. Dr. Hanscom realized that this was false as the plaintiff could not have flown across the country with gas that had been placed in her eye by the defendant during the previous retinal detachment surgery. Dr. Hanscom scheduled re-detachment surgery and the plaintiff failed to show up. The plaintiff returned to the defendant on Aug. 3, 2002, never disclosing that the plaintiff had gone to Dr. Assil or to Dr. Hanscom. The plaintiff failed to reveal that a surgery to reattach her retina had been scheduled for which the plaintiff did not appear. * * *
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff submitted a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $125,000. The defendant made no offer.
Specials in Evidence
None claimed
Injuries
The plaintiff contended that due to the original unnecessary cataract surgery, she developed a retinal detachment that required four later surgeries, one by the defendant, and three by the subsequent treating physician, Dr. Thomas Hanscom. She claimed that her best corrected vision in her right eye is 20/80 and that the vision is unclear. Glasses cannot produce binocular vision because of the refractive error between the plaintiff's right eye and left eye.
Other Information
* * * (CONTINUATION OF FACTS) The examination of the plaintiff's eye by the defendant revealed a re-detachment of the retina. The defendant advised the plaintiff that further surgery was immediately needed and he arranged for that surgery to take place the same evening at Midway Hospital. The plaintiff agreed to have the surgery and left the defendant's office. The plaintiff failed to show up and attempts to contact the plaintif and her family members were unsuccessful on Aug. 3, 2002. On the following day, the surgery had been rescheduled and the plaintiff again failed to appear. This time, a relative of the plaintiff advised the defendant that the plaintiff decided to seek care elsewhere. The plaintiff underwent three subsequent surgeries by Dr. Hanscom, one to reattach the retina, a second to repair a re-detachment and to inject silicone oil, and a third to remove the silicone oil. The plaintiff's best corrected vision in her right eye is 20/80, with distortion of her central visual acuity.
Deliberation
30 minutes
Poll
12-0
Length
11 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390