Roberto Leyva v. Richard Klotz, M.D. (ophthalmologist), Metro Eye Center, Inc., and James Gregg Lynch (ophthalmologic technician)
Published: Feb. 20, 1999 | Result Date: Jan. 15, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 746859 – $0
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Mark V. Franzen
(Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McBride & Peabody)
Experts
Plaintiff
James J. Salz M.D.
(medical)
Defendant
Frank Grady
(medical)
Peter J. McDonnell
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Roberto Leyva, a 36-year-old mortgage loan broker, received an advertisement in the mail indicating "No More Glasses" if he underwent radial keratotomy. The plaintiff was severely myopic (near sighted with -10.0 diopters in both eyes). He was evaluated at the defendant Metro Eye Center on Jan. 27, 1994, and told he was a "perfect candidate for the surgery" and allegedly would never need glass again. The defendant ophthamologist, Dr. Richard Klotz, only saw the plaintiff for five minutes before the actual procedure on February 11, 1994, Dr. Klotz testified that plaintiff was at the "outer limit" for correction but that there was "no chance" he was going to be glasses free even with two surgeries. Dr. Klotz utilized eight radial incisions and two transverse incisions during the first surgery. A small 2.5 millimeter clear optical zone, was selected to allow for maximum correction. Three months later, the plaintiff's vision had regressed and Dr. Klotz performed another procedure utilizing an additional eight incisions two of which crossed the previous transverse incision. He again selected 2.5 millimeter clear optical zone. Post-operatively, the plaintiff has suffered from severe starbursts completely disabling him from driving at night and reading. He has seen a number of ophthamologists including defense physician Dr. McDonnell, who testified that plaintiff's condition is permanent. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on medical malpractice and lacked of informed consent theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $200,000. The defendant made no offer.
Specials in Evidence
$500,000
Damages
$250,000 non-economic damages (impaired vision)
Injuries
The plaintiff needs corneal transplant to wear contacts. His vision is worse than before.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately ____ years and ____ months after the case was filed. A settlement/arbitration/mediation was held on ___/___/19___ before ________ (name) of ______ (affiliation) resulting in _______________. PLEASE RESPOND ASAP, THIS CASE IS FOR FEB. 19 MED MAL SPECIAL ISSUE. THANK YOU.
Deliberation
3½ hours
Poll
11-1 (negligence), 9-3 (informed consent)
Length
nine days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390