A defense verdict was obtained by RRD partner John F. Costa on behalf of an ophthalmologist involving a rare and tragic complication from cataract surgery. The plaintiff ultimately had her eye removed due to blindness and atrophy following two additional surgeries to correct a detached retina. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant ophthalmologist improperly attempted to retrieve the lens nucleus and the lens implant which both subluxed into the posterior segment of the eye during cataract surgery and caused a detached retina. Plaintiff also claimed that the defendant eye surgeon should not have attempted to place the implant once the original lens had subluxed.
The defense successfully demonstrated that the defendant did not attempt to retrieve either the lens nucleus or the lens implant and that the retina actually detached during the subsequent retinal surgery on the following day despite the retinal surgeon’s claim that she did not know if the retina detached during her surgery or prior to it. The defense credibly argued that had a retinal detachment occurred during the original cataract surgery, it would have been mentioned in the retinal surgeon’s operative report when she described the appearance of the retina at the beginning of her procedure. That she did not discover the detachment until the end of a four hour operation was evidence that it occurred during the retinal surgery. The defense argued that this was significant not because it suggested that the retinal surgeon was negligent, but rather, because it was evidence that the defendant cataract surgeon did not improperly go into the back of the eye to retrieve the lens or implant during the original cataract surgery. The defense further argued that it was appropriate to place the implant despite the fact that the original lens had already “dropped” because this would have spared the patient a third surgery – to place the implant – if the retinal surgery to retrieve the dropped lens had been successful.