Misdiagnosis

[jdv]

What is the name of your state? OFFENSE OCCURRED IN NC

My daughter was seen in an optometrist's office on an emergent basis - complaining of a sudden lack of vision in one eye. During examination, a medical history was taken, and details given regarding her premature birth, duration of time on 100% oxygen (known to cause retinal scar tissue), and that she had NO prior vision problems. A "Lazy Eye" diagnosis was rendered, and she was given glasses, etc. During the exam, her eyes were dilated, and a full opthamolic exam was performed. Upon routine examination some 2 years later, it was determined that she had full retinal detachment in the eye in question - and that there was only partial retinal detachment at the time of the initial examination. Had surgery been performed to reattach the retina at that time (as was indicated) she would probably have been able to maintain her sight in that eye. Surgery has now been performed, and was totally unsuccessful. She is completely blind in that eye, and there is no chance of repair. In addition, she will need a prosthetic eye at some time in the near future as the tissue is dying and shrinking.

Question:

1. Is there a basis here for medical malpractice/negligence?
2. I can not seem to find an attorney willing to take this case, so I am considering filing the case myself. Is this advisable? What are the chances of actually being able to win against an experienced attorney?

I would appreciate any feedback on this....

JDV

 

[ellencee]

You do not want to file a medical malpractice case on your own. You have no idea of what is involved, starting with needing at least $10,000 that you can throw away.

You did not state the age of your daughter at the time of the first appointment regarding sudden loss of vision. Usually, a detaching retina doesn't suddenly present with total loss of sight, but with pain and impaired sight such as a blind spot in the visual field.

Premature infants who receive high levels of oxygen for any length of time are at extreme risk for partial or total blindness. The only way to have prevented this would have been to deny this infant the high level of oxygen. More likely than not, you would have preferred her being blind in one eye than doing without the oxygen at the time she was in neonatal ICU. This argument would be used against you in court--you knew and accepted the risk on behalf of your infant.

You'd have to prove that 'but for' the inaction of the first eye physician, your daughter would not be blind in that eye. That would be virtually impossible to prove and I don't think you'd find an expert who would testify otherwise. Retina reattachment is an iffy procedure at the best of times.

As a consultant for an attorney defending your claim, I hate to admit it, but I'd zero in on why you as the parent, being fully informed of this potential loss of vision in your child, did not have her eyes regularly examined at 6 month intervals. I'd also be able to find more reasons to defend this claim than to advocate for it.

We as parents take these kinds of things very personally. We are become angry that our children have to suffer these afflictions or conditions or impairments. Often, we blame ourselves or seek others to blame. Unless we do this in private, we reinforce to our children that something is wrong with them and they aren't going to be accepted as normal and maybe we and the rest of the world won't like them or love them in the same manner as we do those who are fully sighted or unimpaired.

I encourage you to be grateful that your daughter survived what many infants don't; that being the critical stage of premature birth and to let the matter drop.

.

 

[racer72]

You should have taken your daughter to an ophthalmologist, not an optometrist. Optometrists are trained in vision correction and what is need to correct normal vision problems. An ophthalmologist is trained to treat the whole eye. When I had a piece of metal imbedded in my eye about 20 years ago, I saw an ophthalmologist, not an optometrist.

There is also a reason you can't find an attorney, they know that your case cannot be won.

 

[hmmbrdzz]

Sorry about your kid. I totally agree that you would never want to do this alone. In addition to what’s already been stated, I wanted to also add that I believe one thing being focused on now regarding premature retinopathy is that the premature condition itself is now believed to be the most significant factor in the progression of retinal problems (not necessarily the 02 administration being the cause).

The advice you received from ellencee is expert advice, and I would wholeheartedly agree that you should probably move on. I would sure be interested to know, though (just out of curiosity) what in the heck kind of followup care she received after having been born premature and being on 100% 02 (and what were you informed about the risks of this 02 therapy). What kind of eye exams did she have from birth to now? Just those that you've stated? Did you know about the risks of 02 therapy? If that's all the aftercare and followup she received from birth to now, it sounds like to me she fell through the cracks somewhere for some reason. But that doesn't mean you'd be able (or even WANT) to litigate this.

It's certainly a tragedy that she's going through this, but sometimes you've got to live with tragedies even though your instinct says "no I don't".


hmmbrdzz

 

[jdv]

Thanks everyone for the advice... I agree with all of you, in that I don't wish to try to do this on my own.

To answer a couple of the questions posed:

My daughter is 16 years old, and did receive routine eye exams every year of her life beginning around age 4 or so - these exams never resulting in anything less than 20/20 vision. She never complained of any vision impairment, pain, etc. and never had any trouble seeing clearly, until the day in question, when her school called and asked me to pick her up and take her to be examined. She, at that time, had not experienced total vision loss in the affected eye, but merely had a restricted (for lack of a better word) field of vision.

I am certainly not litigious by nature, and the thought of either of us going through this is quite upsetting. Indeed, I would not have even thought about a lawsuit had the attending physician/surgeon that tried to reattach the retina had not said that this should have been seen and handled at the time of the first visit. He seemed to believe that, based on the complaint she presented at that time, a diagnosis of "lazy eye" would have been inappropriate in any case.

I also wanted to mention that we had retained an attorney, who, after about 4 months, stated that due to his current case load, he will not be able to file this case within the time frame we are working under, and that I should "...find another attorney as quickly as possible". I am not sure whether or not an attorney would tell me that he had discovered the case could not be won, or if he truly did not have time to give the case the attention it deserved....

Regardless, I suppose that you are all right - we are extremely fortunate that our daughter survived her birth at all - and perhaps this would all be better left alone.

Thanks for the input - I really do appreciate it!

 

[hmmbrdzz]

Hi jdv: I can only safely advise you that -- since your retained attorney advised you that due to his case load he would not be able to file within the deadline and that you therefore needed to find another attorney -- you should follow soley your attorneys advice, i.e. "find another attorney as quickly as possible". Only an attorney can advise you what your chances are, and there are statutes of limitations for filing that only an attorney can determine where yours end and begin.

Good luck to your and your daughter. I hope things will work out regardless what you decide (and they will.) It will certainly be an adjustment for everyone, but it sounds like she's got some good support from you.

Best wishes.

hmmrbdzz