Stephen Slade sued by Sheryl Sullivan for malpractice
Trulyt...@yahoo.com
patient's laser treatment coordinates. He whisked her off to Mexico for
a non-FDA approved retreatment that didn't fix her problem. Here is the
lawsuit:
No. 98-212329
SHERYL SULLIVAN
vs.
STEPHEN G. SLADE, M.D. and
RICHARD N. BAKER, O.D.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
55th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF's ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes now SHERYL SULLIVAN, Plaintiff in the above titled and numbered
cause, and files this ORIGINAL PETITION against STEVEN G. SLADE, M.D.
and RICHARD N. BAKER, O.D. , and would show unto the Court as follows:
I. Parties
SHERYL SULLIVAN is an individual residing in Sugar Land, Harris County,
Texas. Defendant STEVEN G. SLADE, M.D. is an individual who may be
served at his place of business located at 3900 Essex Lane, Suite 101,
in Houston, Harris County, Texas (77027). Defendant RICHARD N. BAKER,
O.D. is an individual who may be served at his place of business
located at 3900 Essex Lane, Suite 101, in Houston, Harris County, Texas
(77027).
I I. Venue
Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas because all of the
Plaintiff's cause of action Plaintiff's Original Petition arose
there, and both Plaintiff and Defendant reside there.
III. Notice Requirement
Pursuant to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Art. 4590i, Section 4.01, written notice,
return receipt requested, was given to the Defendant Slade more than 60
days prior to the filing of this claim.
IV. Facts
Prior to the incident in question, the Plaintiff was myopic, or
nearsighted. She sought the professional services of Defendants in
order to undergo refractive surgery designed to improve her vision to
20/20 without correction. On or about September, 19, 1996, she
underwent evaluation by Defendants in order to determine the
coordinates to be used for her specific procedure.
On or about September 20, 1996 she underwent refractive surgery known
as "LASIK" by the Defendants at their medical office. However,
rather than use the coordinates of Plaintiff, the Defendants used the
coordinates and measurements of another patient were used to calculate
the manner in which the refractive surgery was performed. As a result,
the Plaintiff was over-corrected and became hyperopic, or farsighted.
Because the surgical procedure to correct hyperopia was not approved
for use in the United States by the F.D.A., it was necessary for the
Plaintiff to be taken to Mexico, where she underwent a second
experimental procedure in an effort to re-correct her eyes to 20/20.
Despite the second procedure, the Plaintiff remains over corrected.
V. Negligence
Plaintiff would show that Defendants owed her a duty to use the
coordinates and measurements which had been taken on her eyes in order
to perform the refractive correction of her eyes. Plaintiff would show
that the use of a different patient's coordinates and measurements on
her eyes by the Defendants is a deviation from the standard of care and
constitutes negligence. Plaintiff would show that Defendants failed to
act as an ordinary, reasonable, prudent health care providers would
under the same or similar circumstances.
More specifically, Plaintiff would show that using another patient's
coordinates and measurements on her eyes during the refractive surgery
is within the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Expert testimony is not
required to establish Defendants' negligence as it is something which
a lay person can understand without the necessity of expert testimony.
Plaintiff would further show that the employees, agents and/or servants
of Defendants were negligent for failing to verify her proper identity,
and verify that only her coordinates and measurements were used for the
refractive surgery. Such failure constitutes negligence. Defendants are
responsible for the negligent acts of their employees, agents and/or
servants under the doctrines of vicarious liability and respondeat
superior.
VI. Damages
Plaintiff would show that she has been damaged and is entitled to
compensation. Plaintiff would show that she has suffered:
mental anguish;
physical pain and suffering
medical expenses; and
lost wages.
Plaintiff would further show that she can reasonably be expected to
suffer such damages in the future.
Plaintiff seeks conpensation in the amount of Fifty Thousand
($50,000.00) Dollars.
VII. Jury Trial
Plaintiff herein requests that the matters complained of herein be
heard and determined by a Jury.
VIII. Prayer
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be
required to answer and appear herein, that judgment be entered against
the Defendants, that Plaintiff be awarded pre- and post-judgement
interest, costs of court, and for other and further relief as she may
be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
ABRAHAM, WATKINS,
NICHOLS & FRIEND
C.F. Jeb Wait, M.D., J.D.
TBN: 20667220
800 Commerce
Houston Tx 77002
(713) 222 7211
(713) 225 0827 - telecopier
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Ace
stories of astigmatism mistakes where they laser the wrong axis,
thereby *increasing* astigmatism. One guy ended up with 3 diopters
*more* astigmatism and a loss of 2 lines of BCVA! Other mistakes is
treating the wrong eye, confusing the left and right eye and both eyes
end up with a refractive error. Patient mix-ups happen from time to
time. I even read one story of a lady that got PRK when lasik was
intended. She decided to let it go and not sue because her PRK outcome
was to her "satisfaction" Another lady was there for PRK and her
surgeon explained that he was going to make a flap. Confused, the lady
said "what flap? I am getting PRK" To which her surgeon replied "I
thought you were there for lasik" then the lady ran right out of the
operating room and asked for a full refund which was promptly granted
and now she warns others of risky lasik/prk and incompetent surgeons!
Ragnar
buy some nut.
IN the case below, the crazy patient LOST the case. And it is
interesting that you went back TEN YEARS to get that lawsuit.
Ragnar
surgeon was found not guilty of the charge. Apparently that doesn't
matter to you.
Trulyt...@yahoo.com
That patient, Sheryl Sullivan, WON a huge settlement agains Dr. Stephen
Slade. Slade had to pay her the big bucks. It was an irresponsible
error that permanently damaged Sheryl Sullivan's vision... and there
is no statute of limitations on THAT kind of stupidity. Treating a
patient for another patient's correction! Good grief.
Even the so called 'experienced' surgeons have severely damaged someone
- choosing an 'experienced' surgeon is no guarantee of safety. A huge
volume of surgeries performed may mean that you are considering surgery
at a 'LASIK mill' where the sheer volume of patients going through the
clinic may make accidents like Slade's permanet damage of Sheryl
Sullivan's vision more likely.
If you are having corneal refractive surgery, permanent eye damage is
pretty much the only guarantee. You'll have some permanent eye damage
for certain.
serebel
Trulyt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> That patient, Sheryl Sullivan, WON a huge settlement agains Dr. Stephen
> Slade. Slade had to pay her the big bucks. It was an irresponsible
> error that permanently damaged Sheryl Sullivan's vision... and there
> is no statute of limitations on THAT kind of stupidity. Treating a
> patient for another patient's correction! Good grief.
There are time limitations for medmal lawsuits.
>
> If you are having corneal refractive surgery, permanent eye damage is
> pretty much the only guarantee. You'll have some permanent eye damage
> for certain.
If this is the case, I just love my "permanent" eye damage. So do
millions of others.
I'm also enjoying TT's permanent brain damage.
Ragnar
What really happenened is that Sheryl Sullivan sued Dr. Slade 10 YEARS
ago. Dr. Slade sent her out of the country to get an advanced
procedure to correct her problems since that procedure had not yet
been FDA approved in this country (typical of FDA idiots). Sheryl not
only did not pursue the lawsuit further, she wrote Dr. Slade a letter
to THANK HIM.. and her vision is now FINE!
Your fictionalized version of the story is SICK.
serebel
Ragnar wrote:
>>
> Your fictionalized version of the story is SICK.
>
>
>
>
Pathological liars do just that, lie.
BTW, retards swear to it.
Ragnar
well.. retards really aren't capable of lying.. They are ignorant but
innocent.
Ace is ignorant but clever enough to lie, so he is smarter than your
average retard. He is just dumb enought ot be Burch's stooge.
serebel
Ragnar wrote:
>
> well.. retards really aren't capable of lying.. They are ignorant but
> innocent.
>
> Ace is ignorant but clever enough to lie, so he is smarter than your
> average retard. He is just dumb enought ot be Burch's stooge.
Ace is a retard by choice. His head is buried in the internet when
real life is out there.
His mommie is not doing him any favors with the eternal support.