SCRANTON – A local woman has reiterated claims that she developed glaucoma, corneal ulcers and other ocular conditions due to professional negligence on the part of her ophthalmologist, after undergoing Lasik eye surgery.
Alicia Hodges and Philip C. Hodges Jr. of Forest City first filed suit in the Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas on July 7 versus Steven Vale, M.D., Acuity Vision, P.C. and Intermountain Eye Associates, P.C., all of Scranton.
“In the summer of 2020, plaintiffs Alicia Hodges and Phillip Hodges were both considering refractive surgery on their eyes and consulted with Dr. Vale. On July 8, 2020, Vale performed a preoperative examination of Mrs. Hodges. In his records from that examination, Vale noted a history of Sjogren’s syndrome. He also noted dry eyes and documented a list of current medications that included methotrexate. After that examination, Vale scheduled Mrs. Hodges for a refractive surgery known as Epi-Lasik, for July 10, 2020,” the suit said.
“Mrs. Hodges was not a candidate for refractive surgery on her eyes and was not a candidate for the particular type of refractive eye surgery known as Epi-Lasik. On July 8, an individual in Vale’s office had a conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Hodges, in which the individual purported to inform Mr. and Mrs. Hodges of all the risks, benefits, and alternatives to refractive surgery, both in general and as to the particular form of refractive surgery – known as Epi-Lasik – that had been recommended by Vale.”
The following day, a representative of Vale and Acuity Laser Vision emailed the plaintiffs to say that with Epi-Lasik, chemicals are not used, a patient has a quicker recovery with much less discomfort, and they gain their visual acuity back sooner.
“On July 10, Vale performed Epi-Lasik procedures on both of Mrs. Hodges’s eyes. After the surgery, Vale went to place a bandage contact lens on Mrs. Hodges’s eye. The lens fell to the floor. Vale picked it up off the floor, rinsed it off, and placed it on Mrs. Hodges’s eye. After Vale’s July 10 surgery, Mrs. Hodges had pain, burning, blurry vision, and dry eyes, and she was not able to see clearly. Between July 10 and August 9, Mrs. Hodges saw Vale nine different times,” per the suit.
“Beginning Aug. 11, 2020, Mrs. Hodges sought vision care from doctors at Wills Eye Hospital. The doctors at Wills Eye identified a fungal infection known as Aspergillus in Mrs. Hodges’s left eye, and identified other significant problems in Mrs. Hodges's left eye that were a result of Vale’s eye surgery. On Oct. 5, 2020, doctors at Wills Eye performed a ‘therapeutic KI with sutured AMT OS for perforated corneal ulcer and possible corneal melt from underlying Sjogren’s.’ Doctors at Wills Eye also identified significant ongoing problems in Mrs. Hodges’s right eye. Mrs. Hodges has ongoing problems with visual acuity in both eyes.”
Subsequently, Mrs. Hodges has undergone two corneal transplants in the left eye, and has had an artificial lens placed in that eye.
“As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of Vale and the refractive eye surgery performed by Vale, Mrs. Hodges suffered severe and disabling injuries to her skin, bone, muscles, flesh, nerves, tendons, blood vessels, and other tissues including, but not limited to, inflammatory processes, pain, and dry eye in both eyes; fungal infections in her left eye; corneal ulcers and corneal melt in her left eye; loss of a lens in her left eye; visual acuity problems in both eyes; photophobia; an aggravation and exacerbation of preexisting conditions; loss of treatment options for other conditions; mental anguish, anxiety, emotional upset, and psychological and other injuries and damages,” according to the complaint.
UPDATE
The defendants answered the complaint on Sept. 29, denying the plaintiffs’ assertions and providing its own new matter.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations and/or the statute of repose. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were caused by their own actions. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of contributory and/or comparative negligence,” per the new matter.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of consent and release. Plaintiffs have not sustained any injuries cognizable under Pennsylvania law as a consequence of answering defendants' alleged negligence. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited because plaintiffs have sustained no injuries in fact. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by a failure to mitigate damages.”
The defendants further reserved all applicable defenses laid out in the Medical Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, 40 P.S. Section 1303.101, et. seq., the provisions of which are incorporated herein and bar or limit plaintiffs’ claims against defendants.
Two weeks later, on Oct. 12, the plaintiffs responded to the defendants’ answer.
“The averments in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further reply, plaintiffs’ claim for damages are and will be in accordance with Pennsylvania decisional and statutory law (and, if and as applicable, federal law), and a result, Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center does not limit those claims,” the plaintiffs’ answer stated.
For counts of negligence, informed consent and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages against each of the defendants in excess of $50,000, plus costs, delay damages, pre- and post-judgment interest.
The plaintiffs are represented by Slade H. McLaughlin, Gregory B. Heller and Mark A. Schork of McLaughlin & Lauricella, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Roseann Lynn Brenner and Elizabeth A. Syer-Ashmore of Goldfein & Joseph, also in Philadelphia.
Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas case 2021-CV-02823
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com