New York Verdicts
Find out about the most important recent New York cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Bronx, Kings, Queens, New York, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties. Subscribe to VerdictSearch for access to all New York verdictsPricing OptionsType:
Verdict-Defendant
State:
New York
Venue:
Nassau County
Court:
Nassau Supreme
Injury Type(s):
eye head-headaches sensory/speech-vision(photophobia); impairment(photophobia)
Case Type:
Medical Malpractice – Eye Surgery, Surgical Error, Ophthalmologist, Informed Consent
Case Name:
Diane C. Betancourt v. Emil W. Chynn, MD & Park Avenue Laser Vision,
No. 25027/09
Date:
March 22, 2013
Plaintiff(s):
Diane C. Betancourt (Female, 46 Years)
Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Richard P. Ford;
Keith, Shapiro & Ford;
Garden City,
NY,
for
Diane C. Betancourt
Defendant(s):
Emil W. Chynn,
Park Avenue Laser Vision
Defense Attorney(s):
Michael T. Loffredo;
Clausen Miller PC;
New York,
NY,
for
Emil W. Chynn, Park Avenue Laser Vision
Defendent Expert(s):
Robert Cykiert;
Refractive Eye Surgery;
New York,
NY called by
Michael T. Loffredo
Insurer(s):
Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Co. for both defendants
On June 8, 2007, plaintiff Diane Betancourt, 46, a teacher, underwent LASIK surgery. The procedure was performed by ophthalmologist Dr. Emil Chynn, and it was intended to correct nearsightedness. Betancourt claimed that the surgery damaged her corneas, that it overcorrected her nearsightedness and that its effects cause chronic dryness of her eyes. Betancourt sued Chynn and his practice, Park Avenue Laser Vision. Betancourt alleged that Chynn failed to properly address her nearsightedness, that Chynn failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery that he performed, that Chynn’s failures constituted malpractice and that Park Avenue Laser Vision was vicariously liable for Chynn’s actions. Betancourt‘s expert ophthalmologist opined that Betancourt should not have undergone LASIK surgery. He claimed that she suffered significant dryness of her eyes, and he noted that LASIK surgery can greatly exacerbate that condition. He contended that the surgery should always be preceded by a test that measures the patient’s ability to produce a sufficient amount of tears. Such tests were not documented in Chynn’s records of his treatment of Betancourt. Betancourt claimed that Chynn did not disclose that the surgery could have caused chronic dryness of her eyes. Thus, her counsel argued that Chynn did not obtain informed consent to the surgery. Betancourt‘s expert also opined that Chynn did not properly perform the surgery. The expert noted that Chynn administered an antimetabolite, mitomycin C, which reduces the likelihood of complications. The expert contended that the drug also inhibits the connection of cellular tissue, and he opined that its use requires a corresponding reduction of the strength of the laser that is applied to the eyes. However, the defense’s expert ophthalmologist opined that Chynn’s laser was properly calibrated. The defense’s expert contended that each surgeon utilizes a unique laser that is calibrated by the surgeon. He claimed that the surgeon’s judgment determines the specific degree of calibration. The defense’s expert also contended that Betancourt‘s medical records did not establish that she had previously experienced significant dryness of her eyes. Chynn claimed that he always performs a presurgical evaluation of the patient’s ability to produce tears. He acknowledged that his records did not document that Betancourt had undergone such a test, but he claimed that he does not document the tests that produce normal results. He also claimed that Betancourt had been advised that the surgery could have produced chronic dryness of her eyes. Chynn further claimed that his surgery did not damage Betancourt‘s corneas. The defense’s expert opined that the damage was a result of allergies and accidents that occurred after the surgery had been performed. Chynn acknowledged that Betancourt suffers farsightedness, but he claimed that overcorrection is an accepted complication of the surgery that he performed. He claimed that he prescribed medication that was treating the condition, but that Betancourt discontinued her use of the medication.
Betancourt claimed that LASIK surgery caused recurrent erosion of her corneas. The procedure was intended to address nearsightedness, but Betancourt claimed that it caused farsightedness. She also claimed that the surgery’s residual effects include headaches, chronic dryness of her eyes and photophobia. She underwent additional surgery, but she claimed that her residual effects persist. Betancourt sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that Chynn’s surgery produced a good result. He claimed that six months passed before Betancourt sought further treatment, and he suggested that Betancourt‘s current problems are a result of unrelated events that occurred after the surgery that Chynn performed. He claimed that her left eye was lacerated, that she experienced a subsequent accident that caused a hemorrhage of her right eye and that she developed allergies that caused conjunctivitis of each eye. He also claimed that Chynn prescribed medication that was treating Betancourt‘s farsightedness, but that Betancourt discontinued her use of the medication.
The jury rendered a defense verdict.
Judge:
John M. Galasso
Demand:
$400,000
Offer:
None
Trial Length:
8
days
Trial Deliberations:
6
hours
Jury Vote:
6-0
Jury Composition:
3 male/ 3 female
This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.