Excessive and unnecessary laser eye surgery causes permanent minor damage to sight
On 30 March 2007 our client attended at his local Optimax clinic and underwent his first surgery. Within two days of the surgery he was experiencing blurring vision when he woke up. He contacted the clinic and was advised to rest his eyes.
On 2 April 2007 our client contacted the clinic complaining of blurring vision and returned to the clinic on 14 April and 21 April 2007. On 24 May 2007 he underwent further treatment at the clinic on both eyes. Over the next 9 months our client attended at the clinic with blurring vision and dry and gritty eyes.
On 7 February 2008, our client underwent further treatment at the clinic on his left eye. On 24 April 2008, he underwent more treatment at the clinic, this time on his right eye. The blurring vision continued.
In February 2009, he was then offered an appointment with an independent surgeon to assess whether he would be suitable for a corneal graft which he was advised would restore good vision.
On 16 February 2009, our client underwent Epi-LASIK treatment on both his left and right eyes.
The following day he complained of excruciating pain in his eyes and queried whether this was normal. He was advised that it was. After being prescribed strong pain killers the pain subsided.
It was alleged that our client was not fully advised of the complications associated with laser eye surgery. He was not advised of the expected benefits of surgery. The clinic failed to use reasonable skill and care when advising him in the initial surgery and all surgery thereafter.
It had never been possible for our client to achieve what he wanted with the surgery.
By February 2008, it was clear that our client had developed refractive error after the last two surgeries and as such it was substandard care to offer further laser treatment to him. There were no indications to suggest that further laser treatment would be able to assist him.
As a result of the extra three treatments our client alleged that he had suffered from corneal haze and scarring that he would not have done if the treatment had been stopped after the first two sessions.
Despite the numerous treatments our client has been able to return to a relatively normal life and will be able to recommence his employment although an exact time frame is unknown.
The clinic admitted that there had been failings in the care provided to our client and he secured £12,000 in an out of court settlement.