Confidential
Settlement – $236,300Judge
Court
USDC Southern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
McGregor W. Scott
(King & Spalding)
Experts
Plaintiff
Richard A. Lewis
(medical)
Facts
In 1995, the plaintiff, a 37-year-old female, complained of itching and other allergy symptoms in her eyes. Her internist, Dr. V., prescribed Pred Forte 1 percent ophthalmic suspension to alleviate the symptoms. Pred Forte is a steroid based eye drop solution which is used by the patient by placing drops into the eyes on a routine basis. Pred Forte is packaged with warnings for the prescribing physicians which indicate that steroid based eye drops can induce glaucoma in patients after prolonged use, causing damage to the optic nerve and loss of vision. Warnings also indicated that patients should not use Pred Forte without having the intraocular pressure within their eyes routinely monitored to check for the onset of glaucoma. Dr. V. renewed or authorized the renewal of the plaintiff's prescription 17 times over a three-year period without providing any warning to the plaintiff of possible vision problems from use of the eye drops, without arranging for any testing of the plaintiff's intraocular pressure, and without referring the plaintiff to a qualified eye care specialist to conduct such testing or otherwise monitor the plaintiff for the onset of glaucoma. In 1998, the plaintiff began to notice a significant loss of vision in her left eye and some changes in vision in her right eye. She reported her symptoms to her optometrist who diagnosed an astigmatism. The plaintiff's condition worsened and she was eventually diagnosed with probable steroid induced glaucoma by an ophthalmologist. The plaintiff immediately discontinued use of the Pred Forte eye drops and was put on new medication designed to reduce intraocular pressure and control any further onset of glaucoma. By the time the plaintiff discontinued use of the Pred Forte eye drops, she had lost approximately 90 percent of her vision in her left eye. Vision in her right eye was marginally affected. The plaintiff's loss of vision was irreversible, although no significant further loss was anticipated over the remainder of her life. The plaintiff remained capable of working at her job and performing most other daily activities.
Settlement Discussions
Through prior counsel, the plaintiff received a previous settlement with two co-defendants totaling $100,000 as compensation for plaintiff's general damages, and $20,000 as compensation for loss of consortium for plaintiff's spouse. The present settlement was for an additional $236,300, and comprised of $30,000 for loss of consortium for plaintiff's spouse, $63,800, adjusted to present value, for plaintiff's future ophthalmological care and medication over the remainder of her life, and $142,500 for plaintiff as remaining compensation for general damages (plaintiff maximized her recovery of general damages under MICRA, less $7,500 which represented the approximate cost to try her case).
Injuries
90 percent loss of vision in her left eye; marginal loss of vision in her right eye.
Other Information
Dr. V was an employee of a federally funded medical clinic and the plaintiff was therefore obliged to file a federal government tort claim with the Department of Health and Social Services in order to proceed with the medical malpractice case.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390