$ help with sclerals?

[fiddle]

I'm not sure this is the right area for this question but here goes. Has anyone ever had any financial help from their lasik eye company to help pay for the cost of their sclerals? I just asked my lasik place today and they said they'd pass it on to the owner (who's also a surgeon there). I'm not holding my breath but they did offer me a full refund back in the spring (which I didn't accept as it boiled down to hush money I felt with the waiver I had to sign with it). I think the lenses would benefit me more and knowing they footed the bill might help to bring some closure to this lasik nightmare I've been living for the last year.
Thanks,
fiddle

[Hopeful2]

Hi fiddle,

I can certainly understand you wanting the lasik company to help out with the cost of the treatments that you are incurring as a direct result of having had lasik surgery. I too have wondered about what I could expect from my lasik company in terms of compensation. I am wondering how many times, in the next ten, twenty years I will need to travel to Texas or Boston to seek the support of scleral lens fitters.

Those of you who have travelled this road, what do you think? Is it reasonable to expect the lasik companies to foot the fill for the next ten or twenty years of lens fittings? Do you know of anybody who has put this forward to the lasik companies and been able to walk away with some sort of a settlement? Going to court would be sooooo emotionally draining that I think it would feel like pouring salt on an open wound.

I am thinking that the only manageable way to handle the court route would be in a group. That group would need to be well represented by a legal counsel that would collect all the information on behalf of the 'victims'. If you have any information that would help someone in my situation, or fiddle's, could you please send a private message.

Thank you!!

[Guest]

I inquired about this with a few lawyers that apparently specializes in this stuff - I was hoping to at least get my eye expenses paid for as that seemed fair. I was told that in Manitoba here, since we do not have punitive damages??? as they do in the U.S., that the amount that could be won would be small relative to the expense of going to court. They said we'd likely have to get a surgeon from the U.S. to testify since no-one local would want to stir the pot and do it... the cost of finding a doctor from afar that would be willing to testify would be high he said... plus, there's no proof that we weren't adequately informed of the risks so it's a he-said-she-said kind of thing. He also said that going in front of a jury trying to get something for "dry eye" sounds so innocuous that it, too, would be a tough sell. He said that say someone is negligent and causes you to become a paraplegic here - apparently the most you can get for THAT is 300k. So dry eye would be worth sooooo much less that the expenses of going to court would likely be more than one could win here.

Anyhow, if I recall correctly, I had contacted a handful of lawyers at the time, and all said pretty much the same thing.

But, maybe Ontario law is different??

Also, here in Manitoba, you only have 2 years from the time the injury occurred to file a lawsuit... apparently that can be stretched to the date of the last appointment with the doctor in some cases, but not always???

Needless to say, it seemed like too much trouble to pursue...

Maybe a class action type of lawsuit would be have a better chance of paying off since the expenses would be split between more people??? I don't know... it kind of stinks though since there's absolutely no incentive for the industry to play fair and be upfront about the real risks, however rare. Maybe they'd stop this nonsense about telling people only the good stuff, and glossing over or outright lying about the bad...

bleh... it sucks...

[Rebecca Petris]

As regards getting a lasik practice to voluntarily fund expensive complications treatments, if you look at it from the point of view of the doctor (and barring the truly exceptional case - which does occasionally happen, believe it or not - where they do it simply because they feel morally obligated to) there are two ways they could go on this: (a) They could do it because they feel if they take care of you, you are less likely to sue; and (b) they could choose not to because they fear doing so would be tantamount to admitting it was their fault in the first place (as opposed to your dry eye and your lasik simply being coincidental) and that you're planning to first get them to pay for treatment and THEN sue.

I think most of the cases I know, if the doctor funded complex postop treatment it was for vision complications, not dry eye. Usually they'll do dry eye in house because - compared with complicated vision issues - it's pretty easy to prove that they mets 'standard of care' (snicker) i.e. Restasis, plugs and the odd steroid drop.

On the other hand you might get them to agree to fund $x worth of treatments in exchange for not pursuing litigation, if it looked like you had a strong case... fair tradeoff in my opinion.

Lawsuits... there have been several successful suits in the US. It's always difficult because of the state caps on pain and suffering (if blindness is only worth X then how can dry eye be worth enough to pay the lawyer a living wage?) and the payouts aren't huge but it does happen. It means finding a lawyer who's done a lot of it before and has a 'stable' of expert witnesses ready to go. However it's really tough to prove negligence as a cause of dry eye, since dry eye also happens to people who really were 'great candidates', and suing about informed consent alone - though in my opinion it absolutely SHOULD be possible since it really represents the crux of the problem - is hardly ever attempted. Usually you need to be able to show the doctor really screwed up and then the fact that he misled you in informed consent is just reinforcement.

[DCRdryeye]

I'm actually suing the surgeon that induced my dry eye. I found a NO WIN/NO FEE firm here in Australia, are they available in the USA? I agree with the above statements that it is certainly difficult. Here, we have to have an impairment of 5% or over to sue. It's difficult, if not, impossible to sue on pain and discomfort, BUT suffering stress, anxiety, depression and how it's turned our lives upside down is a different story!! So a psychological/psychiatric assessment is the better way to go. I saw a doctor that my lawyer sent me to and I got an impairment of 10% - which is "double" the threshold, that's good news. The bad news is the government requires we be assessed by an independent "Medical Panel" of their choice which I've been through a few weeks ago and awaiting their impairment assessment, if it's below 5% I cannot sue. There is a difference between impairment and disability - the system is somewhat flawed and protects the doctors. In my case, I was given little if any side effect outcomes and given no alternative treatments (even when I asked during the initial consultation) - it was straight to the chopping block, cookie cutter style. They pay no attention to how we feel and want to know nothing about our concerns because "they" are the experts. That needs to change.
I encourage anyone who has dry eye induced by Lasik to sue. It's a barbaric practice and really needs to end.