Exposing the LASIK Scam

One Surgeon at a Time
It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:19 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Dr. Robert Maloney sued for malpractice, assault and battery
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:49 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 161
LAW OFFICES OF MARK P. ROBINSON
MARK P. ROBINSON ? STATE BAR NO. 21597
One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: 213/485-1798

Attorneys for Plaintiff
YVETTE BOLESLAV
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT ? SANTA MONICA

YVETTE BOLESLAV,

Plaintiff,
v.

ROBERT MALONEY, M.D.; MALONEY
VISION INSTITUTE; PATRICK DOYLE,
M.D.; EYES OF WESTWOOD; and DOES 1
TO 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. SC061237

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGED
AGAINST HEALTHCARE
PROVIDER; AND DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL

TRIAL DATE: None

Plaintiff, YVETTE BOLESLAV, files this Complaint for Damages against healthcare
provider for negligence and alleges as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE)

1. The full extent of the facts linking each of the fictitiously designated defendants with this cause of action, are unknown to plaintiff, and the true names or capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership, associate, or otherwise, of each of the defendants DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore
sues each of those defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to of negligent, tortious and unlawful conduct, which negligently, tortiously and unlawfully proximately caused injury and damages to plaintiff as herein alleged. Plaintiff will hereafter ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show those defendants? true names and capacities after the same have been ascertained.

2. At all times herein mentioned, the following defendants were holding themselves out to the public as medical doctors and/or healthcare providers, licensed and authorized to provide healthcare service in California: defendants ROBERT MALONEY, O.D.; MALONEY VISION INSTITUTE; PATRICK DOYLE, O.D.; EYES OF WESTWOOD and LASER CARE MEDICAL CENTER (hereinafter ?defendants?) and DOES 1 to 100 inclusive, and each of them.

3. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants, including DOE defendants, acted as an agent for each and all of the other co-defendants, and at all pertinent times acted within the course and scope of the agency. At all times herein mentioned, defendants MALONEY and DOYLE, through a system of referral, would jointly treat and advise certain patients, referring them back and forth, depending on the particular medical service, which was calculated to be rendered. At various times, this afore-described system of medical referral was tendered to plaintiff, herein by each of the aforementioned defendants, commencing no later than May of 1998, and continuing to a date not earlier than mid-December of 1998. In the latter part of June of 1998, plaintiff submitted to laser surgery, for which she was prepared by defendant DOYLE, and received the actual surgery at the hands of defendant MALONEY. In either late December of 1998 or January of 1999, plaintiff received a so-called ?enhancement surgery at the hands of defendant MALONEY. Thereafter, the follow-up treatment was conducted by defendant DOYLE.

4. Prior to plaintiff receiving the medical services heretofore described, plaintiff had experienced a reduction in her vision of her right eye over a period of months. After a short period of examinations, treatment, advice and prescription, each of the defendants advised the plaintiff that the laser surgery, which would be performed by the defendant MALONEY, should increase her vision. Prior to the June 1998 surgery, plaintiff inquired of the defendants, and each of them, as to whether the type of surgery contemplated would have any potential to create and/or increase so-called ?floaters? in either of plaintiff?s eyes. Plaintiff had, for a period of a number of weeks, prior to June of 1998, experienced a small number of floaters. In response to plaintiff?s inquiry, defendants, and each of them advised plaintiff that the mechanics of the particular advised surgery could not cause or increase any condition of ?floaters? and that no such reaction was being reported by patients of other professionals around the United States, who were rendering the same type of laser surgery contemplated for plaintiff. Plaintiff relied upon the professional opinions of defendants, and each of them, and submitted to the contemplated surgery.

5. Following the surgery of June of 1998, plaintiff reported for various follow-up examinations, during which time, reduction in her vision increased. When plaintiff advised defendants of the vision reduction, she was told to wait a period of a number of months and if there was no improvement, then she would be asked to undergo a so-called ?enhancement? surgery. After about three months following the surgery, plaintiff began to experience a significant increase in the number of floaters, which she had experienced prior to the surgery. When she complained to the defendants and each of them about the increase in the number of floaters, she was told by both the defendants that ?floaters? are not a known side-effect of the type of surgery which she had submitted to, because the laser surgery does not enter into the area of the eye which produced floaters. Plaintiff again relied upon the representations of defendants, and each of them. Finally, in January of 1999, plaintiff submitted to a so-called ?enhancement? surgery, which ultimately improved her vision, except for the increased ?floaters?.

6. Plaintiff continued to have intermittent examinations and contact with defendant DOYLE up to approximately May or June of 1999. In June of 1999, she was examined by a retinal specialist, who advised her that the type of laser surgery which she had experienced can, under certain conditions, cause floaters and/or increase the number of
existing floaters. Up until that time, plaintiff had relied completely upon the opinions and advice given to her by defendants, and each of them, including their advice and opinions that the laser eye surgery, which she had submitted to, could not, mechanically, produce or be the cause of , and/or increase the number of ?floaters.? At that time, and for the first time, plaintiff perceived that the laser surgery, which she had experienced, could in fact increase the number and seriousness of ?floaters.?

7. That defendants, and each of them, negligently examined, diagnosed, cared for, treated, advised and managed plaintiff, as a patient, both prior to and subsequent to the two surgical procedures, aforementioned; that as a legal result of such tortuous conduct and advice, plaintiff has experienced significant interference with her eyesight by the presence of multiple ?floaters,? which plaintiff would not have experienced if she had been appropriately advised that there could be a mechanical connection between the type of eye surgery recommended, and performed, by defendants as to plaintiff. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, alleges that some or all of her complaints will be permanent.

8. That as a legal result of defendants? conduct aforementioned, plaintiff has incurred medical expenses to treat her diminished eyesight and other symptoms, and will continue in the future to incur such expense for an undetermined time, in amounts not fully ascertained; that as a legal result of defendants? conduct aforementioned, plaintiff has incurred loss of earnings, and will sustain such in the future in amounts not yet ascertained; plaintiff will ask leave to amend this complaint when the amounts aforementioned are ascertained.

9. That as a legal result of defendants? conduct aforementioned, plaintiff has sustained injury and damages to her physical and nervous, and mental and emotional health which may be permanent, and in an amount not less than the minimum jurisdictional amount of the Superior Court.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(ASSAULT AND BATTERY)

10. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the First Cause of Action as if set forth in full herein.

11. That because of intentional misrepresentations made to plaintiff by defendants, and each of them, to the effect that eye ?floaters? could not be produced or increased as the result of the defendants? recommended surgical procedure, plaintiff submitted to the so-called ?advanced? type of surgery, which, in fact, did cause and increase floaters in both of plaintiff?s eyes, so as to seriously interfere with her vision, and the details of which has been described in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, above; that had the defendants advised plaintiff that the contemplated surgery was known to have caused, and/or increased eye ?floaters? in other patients, plaintiff would never have submitted to surgery.

12. That as a legal result of defendants? aforedescribed conduct, defendants and each of them they failed to obtain a legal and informed consent from plaintiff to carry out the the recommended surgery. The so-called ?advanced? laser surgery and its subsequent required follow-up treatment administered to plaintiff amounted to a legal battery on plaintiff?s person.

13. Further, the battery was carried out by the defendants and each of them with a conscious disregard of plaintiff?s legal rights, her health and future welfare. Each of defendant?s conduct was malicious. Defendants are liable for punitive damages in an amount to be alleged at a later date.

W H E R E F O R E, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE)

1. General damages according to proof, in excess of this Court?s minimum jurisdictional amount;
2. All medical and incidental expenses according to proof;
3. Loss of earnings according to proof;
4. For prejudgment interest according to proof;
5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
6. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(ASSAULT AND BATTERY)

1. General damages according to proof, in excess of this Court?s minimum
jurisdictional amount;
2. All medical and incidental expenses according to proof:
3. Loss of earnings according to proof;
4. For prejudgment interest according to proof
5. For costs of suit incurred herein;
6. For punitive damages according to proof; and
7. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: April 10, 2000. LAW OFFICES OF MARK P. ROBINSON
BY:
MARK P. ROBINSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Comes now, plaintiff, YVETTE BOLESLAV, and demands a Jury Trial on all causes of action.

Dated: April 10, 2000. LAW OFFICES OF MARK P. ROBINSON
BY:
MARK P. ROBINSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
Isn't he certified by Glenn Hagele of CRSQA/USAEyes.org? Anybody know how many times Dr. Robert Maloney has been sued? I know of another lawsuit against him.

That certification is a hoax anyway you look at it because LASIK does permanent damage to 100% of eyes. All LASIK is bad LASIK, no matter who performs it.

_________________
Broken Eyes

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Plato


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:49 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
I heard that the Chang trial has been postponed til June 27, 2007.

_________________
Broken Eyes

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Plato


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits