Indiana Ophthalmologist Wins Jury Trial; Plaintiff Takes Nothing

By: Stephanie Franco Holtzlander
BleekeDillonCrandall Attorneys

Case Summary:

In November of 2001, a 74-year-old woman was suffering from cataracts. She scheduled cataract surgery at a Hospital in northern Indiana with an Ophthalmologist. The surgery was performed in November of 2001 and Ophthalmologist planned to include the insertion of a “posterior intraocular implant.” During the procedure, however, the Ophthalmologist encountered complications which prompted her to switch to an “anterior lens implant” instead.

Use of an “anterior lens implant” comes with some risk, among those risks are the possibility of increased pressure within the eye and damage to the optic nerve. In order to avoid this risk when implanting anterior lenses, it was suggested at trial that routine practice is for the Ophthalmologist to also perform iridectomies, which is the removal of a small portion of the iris. Ophthalmologist in this case did not perform an iridectomy.

Patient’s condition did not improve following surgery so she sought a second opinion from an ophthalmologist in her area. She then learned that she had elevated pressure in her right eye. With this knowledge, Patient underwent emergency Yag laser iridectomy in February of 2002. She was then referred to a cornea specialist who performed further surgery in May of 2002. Despite these repair surgeries, Patient claims to have resulting permanent damage to her right eye.

Patient brought a lawsuit pursuant to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and the case was submitted to a Medical Review Panel comprised of three ophthalmologists. Patient argued that the performance of an iridectomy is not simply customary when implanting an anterior lens, it is actually required by the standard of care. Patient maintained that Ophthalmologist’s failure to perform the procedure was a breach in the standard of care and caused permanent eye damage. The Medical Review Panel agreed and rendered an unanimous opinion against Ophthalmologist. Patient pursued her claim in state court.

This case was tried by a jury in Lake County Superior Court. Ophthalmologist argued that Patient’s outcome was related to her failure to follow doctor’s orders and pointed to Patient’s pre-existing conditions and failures by Patient’s subsequent doctors to recognize problems. Ophthalmologist relied on evidence from several ophthalmology experts. After three days of testimony, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ophthalmologist with the Patient taking nothing by way of the verdict.

Analysis:

This case offers an excellent example of how a physician can prevail in a jury trial despite a unanimously unfavorable Medical Review Panel Opinion. Litigation, like other competitions, generally rewards the party that is the most prepared and has gathered the strongest resources. Working with medical malpractice defense counsel who are experienced and savvy in your field of medical expertise is essential to successfully litigating a medical negligence case in front of a jury. Assembling credible and highly qualified expert witnesses in cases involving medical questions that are controversial or where a question of proper technique exists, is very persuasive. In this case, Ophthalmologist’s use of experts carried the day.

For more information about this case or the BleekeDillonCrandall medical negligence defense team, please contact Stephanie Holtzlander at Stephanie@bleekedilloncrandall.com.