Confidential
Settlement – $342,500Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Constance A. Endelicato
(Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP)
Jerry C. Popovich
(Hawkins, Parnell & Young LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
David H. Lee
(medical)
Kenneth Sain
(medical)
Martin K. Fallor
(medical)
Facts
On Oct. 6, 1995, the plaintiff, a 55-year-old homemaker, underwent elective plastic surgery (bletheroplasty) on both eyelids performed by defendant surgeon. Following the surgery, the plaintiff developed swelling and irritation on the upper left eyelid and defendant surgeon prescribed Pred-Mild, a corticosteroid eye drop for the condition.
The plaintiff was directed to the defendant pharmacy which was across the hall from the defendant surgeon to have the prescription filled. The plaintiff continued to experience irritation on the upper left eyelid during the next 12 months during which she visited defendant surgeon.
According to plaintiff, defendant surgeon told her to continue to use the Pred-Mild eye drops as directed (two drops in each eye five times daily). Defendant surgeon denies that he ever told plaintiff to continue to use Pred-Mild after the first bottle was completed or that he or anyone at his office authorized any refill of the prescription eye drops.
The plaintiff had arranged with the defendant pharmacy to have her medications (including non-prescription medications and vitamins) sent directly to her home via UPS delivery. On 13 separate occasions, refills of the Pred-Mild were sent directly to plaintiff at her home. The plaintiff used the Pred-Mild as directed by placing 10 drops in her left eye each day for an entire year.
After approximately one year of using the Pred-Mild daily, plaintiff began to notice changes in her field of vision in her left eye. She visited her optician who tested plaintiffÆs intraocular pressure to be above 50. The plaintiff was treated urgently that same day and thereafter by an ophthalmologist with medications and trablecoplasty laser surgery to lower the pressure. As a consequence of the prolonged use of Pred-Mild, plaintiff contracted glaucoma in her left eye resulting in permanent and significant loss of vision in her left eye requiring continued used of eye drops for the remainder of her life in order to maintain her eye pressure.
The plaintiffÆs motion for leave to amend her complaint to add causes of action for battery, fraud and a prayer for punitive damages was granted as to the pharmacy defendant.
The same motion was denied as to defendant surgeon. The basis of the motion was evidence that the pharmacist knew that the prolonged use of Pred-Mild was dangerous to the plaintiff but nevertheless continued to dispense it.
Injuries
The plaintiff suffered 80 percent loss of peripheral vision in the left eye and permanent damage to the optic nerve due to steroid-induced glaucoma, emotional distress and lifetime use of eyedrops with potential side effects.
Result
Defendant pharmacist paid $342,500. Defendant pharmacist filed a subrogation action against the defendant surgeon.
Other Information
The case settled before William R. Sheffield of Judicate West approximately two years after the case was filed.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390