Re: Dr. Brian Boxer-Wachler Sued by Paula Fialkoff for Medical Malpractice (recommended by Glenn Hagele)

691 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Glenn - USAEyes.org

unread,
Dec 2, 2006, 3:28:52 PM12/2/06
to

The usaeyes.INFO website created by CyberAssassin Brent Hanson is not
in any manner affiliated with the Council for Refractive Surgery
Quality Assurance, a nonprofit patient advocacy with websites located
at http://www.USAEyes.org and http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

Brent Hanson is not in any way affiliated with USAEyes.org

The creation of the usaeyes.INFO website and purchase of similar
domains by Brent Hanson appears to be a violation of the US Federal
Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and appears to be in
violation of regulations under the authority of the Internet
Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Brent Hanson is currently being litigated against for defamation and
invasion of privacy in California Superior Court, Sacramento. Brent
Hanson lost a defamation lawsuit brought against him by William
Boothe, MD, was found in contempt of court, and was sentenced to 540
days in jail. For details regarding both defamation cases including a
copy of the Texas court's finding of contempt and sentence, see
http://www.glennhagele.com/brenthanson/

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org

Lasik Bulletin Board
http://www.USAEyes.org/Ask-Lasik-Expert/

I am not a doctor.

Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved

Scott

unread,
Dec 2, 2006, 4:10:36 PM12/2/06
to

"Brent Hanson - USAEyes.info" <do_not_...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:PM6dnX0nIuyfVuzY...@comcast.com...
> 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
> Plaintiff,
> vs.
> 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,
> Defendants.
>
> 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
> California.
> 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
> (Negligence)
> 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
> glasses.
> 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
>
> http://usaeyes.info/lawsuits/dr.-brian-boxer-wachler-sued-by-paula-fialkoff-
> for-medical-malpractice.html
>
>


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages