"Brent Hanson - USAEyes.info" <do_not_...@anywhere.com
> wrote in message
> ERIC S. ERDMANN, ESQ. SBN 171707
> LAW OFFICE OF ERIC S. ERDMANN, P.C.
> 9999 Business Park Ave., Suite A
> San Diego, CA 92131
> Tel: (858) 653-5813
> Fax: (858) 549-3094
> Attorneys for Plaintiff
> SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
> LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
> PAULA FIALKOFF
> BRIAN S. BOXER WACHLER an individual, JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE MEDICAL
> GROUP type of business unknown, FREEDOM VISION LASER CENTER type of business
> unknown, UCLA LASER REFRACTIVE CENTER type of business unknown, and DOES
> 1-25 inclusive,
> Plaintiff alleges as follows:
> GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
> 1. Plaintiff PAULA FIALKOFF is, and at all times herein mentioned
> was, a resident of San Diego, California who contracted with the defendant
> and had performed on her person an operation in the State of California,
> county of Los Angeles.
> 2. BRIAN S. BOXER WACHLER is, and at all times herein mentioned
> was an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of
> 3. Defendants, JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE MEDICAL GROUP type of
> business unknown, FREEDOM VISION LASER CENTER type of business unknown, UCLA
> LASER REFRACTIVE CENTER is a business entity type unknown, are all located
> and doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
> 4. At all times relevant all medical procedures and/or conduct
> leading to this lawsuit occurred within the County of Los Angeles, State of
> California. Prior to filing this lawsuit the plaintiff gave notice of
> intent to commence an action.
> 5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
> Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues
> these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this
> Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
> Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the
> fictitiously named Defendants are negligently responsible in some manner for
> the occurrences herein alleged, and that each Plaintiff's injuries as herein
> alleged were legally caused by Defendants, and each of their negligence.
> 6. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the
> agent, servant and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in
> doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and
> scope of their agency, servancy and/or employment.
> FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
> 7. On or about January 16-18, 2001, Plaintiff Paula Fialkoff
> presented herself for an eye exam and operation. The purpose of the exam
> was to determine whether she was a Candidate for some type of LASIK and/or
> Keretomony [keretectomy] procedure.
> 8. The [she] was advised that the procedure included the new
> LADAR Vision procedures based on the pamphlets the clinic gave Ms. Fialkoff.
> 9. Upon arrival and examination, Ms. Fialkoff was advised by Dr.
> Solney that she would not be a Candidate for the procedure due to that
> apparent [a]stigmatism in her left eye.
> 10. At that point another doctor at the clinic named Brian S.
> Boxer Wachler came into the exam room and informed Plaintiff that he could
> perform the procedure. However, due to her condition she was advised that
> the procedure would cost an additional $2,500.00.
> 11. On January 18, 2001, Ms. Fialkoff arrived with members of her
> family to the defendant Freedom Vision Laser Center. The members of her
> family were led into an observation room so they could see the operation and
> use of the new LADAR vision device.
> 12. Ms. Fialkoff was placed on a table face up looking toward the
> ceiling when the procedures began. As the staff of the defendants started
> the LADAR and or other medical device, and before an initial cut was made,
> the machine abruptly aborted the procedure. The staff attempted a second
> time. The machine aborted again. Said aborted procedures happened on at
> least two occasions possibly three or four occasions prior to the operation
> beginning on the plaintiff. On information and belief, at that point the
> defendant Dr. Boxer Welcher [Wachler] either over rode the safety procedures
> or had caused someone else to do so, and began the operation.
> 13. During that operation the machine abruptly aborted again.
> Several attempts were made to restart the machine. However, the machine
> kept aborting. With the eye partially operated on the medical procedures
> was stopped.
> 14. Eventually, Ms. Fialkoff, now almost totally blind was
> transferred to another location of the defendants where an A/K procedure was
> performed on her right eye by another doctor under the guidance of Dr. Boxer
> Welcher [Wachler]. For the next 48 hours Ms. Fialkoff remained in an almost
> blind condition, while on information and belief the defendants attempted to
> fix the machine used on the plaintiff.
> 15. She remained in that condition until she received a call from
> Dr. Boxer Welcher's [Wachler's] office to report to another location to
> finish her eye operation. She was sent home.
> 16. As a result of the defendants overriding safety protocols and
> or the negligent operation of the machine, the Plaintiff's vision has
> continued to deteriorate. Her sight is not now fully correctable with
> 17. As a direct result of the defendants conduct, a prior
> existing skin condition the plaintiff suffers from, since the operation, has
> spread into her eyes. That condition now causes puss filled boils to form
> inside her eye lids causing irritation and almost near blindness when the
> condition is active. The plaintiff was either not asked about prior
> existing skin conditions or adequately inquired of by the defendants prior
> to the plaintiff's operations.
> 18. Defendants, and each of them, fell below the standard of care
> in the local community for medical professionals when they performed the
> medical procedures without first properly diagnosing the plaintiff's prior
> medical condition and evaluating the possible effects such a condition could
> have on the plaintiff's vision, properly obtaining informed consent from the
> plaintiff concerning the possiable [possible] affects her prior medical
> condition could have on her vision.
> 19. Further each defendant was negligent when they overrode
> safety procedures in an attempt to continue with an operation that should
> have never been performed based on the condition of the medical machinery
> and or devices or the defendants lack of knowledge how to use it.
> 20. The Defendants and DOES 1-25, and each of them thereby
> directly and legally caused the injuries and damages to all Plaintiffs as
> hereinafter described.
> 21. As a further proximate result of the negligence of
> Defendants, and each of them, all Plaintiffs suffered damages for incidental
> expenses, including, but not limited to, the cost of medications, gas, and
> other out-of-pocket expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.
> 22. As a further proximate result of the negligence of the
> Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was prevented from attending to her
> usual occupation, and has been damaged thereby in an amount according to
> proof at trial.
> WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment for every cause of action as follows:
> For general damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
> For medical, incidental and related expenses in an amount according to proof
> at trial;
> For lost income (past and future) in an amount to be proven at trial;
> For costs of suit herein incurred;
> For pre-judgment and post-judgment interests; and
> For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
> Plaintiff reserves the right to amend these pleading[s] for causes
> of actions that would support a request for punitive damages pursuant to
> C.C.P. section 425.13.
> DATED: April 11, 2002 LAW OFFICES OF ERIC S. ERDMANN P.C.
> ERIC. S. ERDMANN
> Attorney for Plaintiff