Dr. Maloney and a LASIK Lawsuit

I did a search on him and found this. It is just a part of the page.

Case Number: SC073643
JUDY JADE CHANG VS. ROBERT K. MALONEY, M.D., ET AL.

Filing Date: 08/23/2002
Case Type: Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Consolidated for all Proceedings: SC083557 on 03/03/2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Hearings
02/20/2007 at 08:30 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
Malibu, CA 90265
Final Status Conference (T/D = 2/28/2007)

02/28/2007 at 09:00 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
Malibu, CA 90265
Jury Trial (@ 20 day estimate)

On Mar 27, 4:03 pm, southeasteyec...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I did a search on him and found this. It is just a part of the page.
>
> Case Number: SC073643
> JUDY JADE CHANG VS. ROBERT K. MALONEY, M.D., ET AL.

Toyota has made cars that have caught fire, but I still like mine.

Titanium bike frames have, reportedly, cracked mysteriously, but I
still ride regularly.

So ... what's your point??

Can you tell us, objectively, about the relative merits of each side
in this case?

Summary:

This person had Lasik, and then an "enhancement".

Floaters developed after the Lasik.

Most majority-opinion medical doctors would agree
that the Lasik does not produce floaters.

But this truly shows the extent to which ANY MEDICAL
PERSON must practice DEFENSIVE METHODS.

And even the best doctor, being as careful as possible,
can be subjected to any of these charges if something
happens, after the surgery that is not connected with the
original surgery.

This truly defines and limits medical practice.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis


>
> Filing Date: 08/23/2002
> Case Type: Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction)
> Status: Pending
>
> Consolidated for all Proceedings: SC083557 on 03/03/2005
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
> Future Hearings
> 02/20/2007 at 08:30 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
> Malibu, CA 90265
> Final Status Conference (T/D = 2/28/2007)
>
> 02/28/2007 at 09:00 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
> Malibu, CA 90265
> Jury Trial (@ 20 day estimate)

On Mar 27, 7:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> And even the best doctor, being as careful as possible,
> can be subjected to any of these charges if something
> happens, after the surgery that is not connected with the
> original surgery.
>
> This truly defines and limits medical practice.
>
> Just one man's opinion.

True. DOCTORS DO have this sort of exposure (for which they carry
insurance).

Unlicensed practitioners, on the other hand, could ruin anybody's
(including their own niece's) vision and proceed with impunity.

Couldn't they, Otis?

One wonders what the purpose of "South East Eye Center"
is in posting these statements.

Perhaps they could explain.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis


On Mar 27, 10:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Summary:
>
> This person had Lasik, and then an "enhancement".
>
> Floaters developed after the Lasik.
>
> Most majority-opinion medical doctors would agree
> that the Lasik does not produce floaters.
>
> But this truly shows the extent to which ANY MEDICAL
> PERSON must practice DEFENSIVE METHODS.
>
> And even the best doctor, being as careful as possible,
> can be subjected to any of these charges if something
> happens, after the surgery that is not connected with the
> original surgery.
>
> This truly defines and limits medical practice.
>
> Just one man's opinion.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
>
> > Filing Date: 08/23/2002
> > Case Type: Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction)
> > Status: Pending
>
> > Consolidated for all Proceedings: SC083557 on 03/03/2005
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----
> > Future Hearings
> > 02/20/2007 at 08:30 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
> > Malibu, CA 90265
> > Final Status Conference (T/D = 2/28/2007)
>
> > 02/28/2007 at 09:00 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
> > Malibu, CA 90265
> > Jury Trial (@ 20 day estimate)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Mar 27, 8:11�pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Summary:
>
> This person hadLasik, and then an "enhancement".
>
> Floaters developed after theLasik.
>
> Most majority-opinion medical doctors would agree
> that theLasikdoes not produce floaters.
>
> But this truly shows the extent to which ANY MEDICAL
> PERSON must practice DEFENSIVE METHODS.
>
> And even the best doctor, being as careful as possible,
> can be subjected to any of these charges if something
> happens, after the surgery that is not connected with the
> original surgery.
>
> This truly defines and limits medical practice.
>
> Just one man's opinion.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
>
> > Filing Date: 08/23/2002
> > Case Type: Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction)
> > Status: Pending
>
> > Consolidated for all Proceedings: SC083557 on 03/03/2005
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----
> > Future Hearings
> > 02/20/2007 at 08:30 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
> > Malibu, CA 90265
> > Final Status Conference (T/D = 2/28/2007)
>
> > 02/28/2007 at 09:00 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
> > Malibu, CA 90265
> > Jury Trial (@ 20 day estimate)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Otis, this case is not about floaters! Ms. Chang has irregular
astigmatism, extreme dry eye, chunks of metallic debris in her eye
visible to the naked eye, and was not informed that the procedure
performed was not FDA-approved. Her vision is not correctable even
with a hard contact lens. The lawsuit has been dragging on since
2002, and is now scheduled for trial in October, 2007.

On May 5, 11:37 am, LASIK Nightmare <badla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Otis, this case is not about floaters! Ms. Chang has irregular
> astigmatism, extreme dry eye, chunks of metallic debris in her eye
> visible to the naked eye, and was not informed that the procedure
> performed was not FDA-approved. Her vision is not correctable even
> with a hard contact lens. The lawsuit has been dragging on since
> 2002, and is now scheduled for trial in October, 2007


Keller here knows everything about every lawsuit on the planet. The
more frivilous, the more she "knows".

On 5 May 2007 08:37:41 -0700, LASIK Nightmare <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Otis, this case is not about floaters!

Please forgive him. He's a bit of an idiot.

Worse, though: he's an idiot on a mission. In that case, at lease,
the two of you should get along quite nicely.

Take care,

Neil

On May 5, 11:54 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Worse, though: he's an idiot on a mission. In that case, at lease,
> the two of you should get along quite nicely.
>
> Take care,
>
> Neil


Think of the "children".

On Mar 27, 8:03 pm, southeasteyec...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I did a search on him and found this. It is just a part of the page.
>
> Case Number: SC073643
> JUDY JADE CHANG VS. ROBERT K. MALONEY, M.D., ET AL.
>
> Filing Date: 08/23/2002
> Case Type: Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction)
> Status: Pending
>
> Consolidated for all Proceedings: SC083557 on 03/03/2005
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
> Future Hearings
> 02/20/2007 at 08:30 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
> Malibu, CA 90265
> Final Status Conference (T/D = 2/28/2007)
>
> 02/28/2007 at 09:00 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way,
> Malibu, CA 90265
> Jury Trial (@ 20 day estimate)