Dr. Maloney and a LASIK Lawsuit

Discussion in 'Laser Eye Surgery' started by southeasteyecare, Mar 28, 2007.

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

    Case Number: SC073643

    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)
    southeasteyecare, Mar 28, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. southeasteyecare

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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?
    Neil Brooks, Mar 28, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. southeasteyecare

    otisbrown Guest


    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

    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.

    otisbrown, Mar 28, 2007
  4. southeasteyecare

    Neil Brooks Guest

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

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

    Couldn't they, Otis?
    Neil Brooks, Mar 28, 2007
  5. southeasteyecare

    otisbrown Guest

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

    Perhaps they could explain.

    Just one man's opinion.

    otisbrown, Mar 28, 2007
  6. 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.
    LASIK Nightmare, May 5, 2007
  7. southeasteyecare

    Guest Guest

    Keller here knows everything about every lawsuit on the planet. The
    more frivilous, the more she "knows".
    Guest, May 5, 2007
  8. southeasteyecare

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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 Brooks, May 5, 2007
  9. southeasteyecare

    Guest Guest

    Think of the "children".
    Guest, May 5, 2007
  10. southeasteyecare

    connors Guest

    connors, May 9, 2007
  11. southeasteyecare

    Guest Guest

    here they go again.
    Guest, May 9, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.