 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2007Dr. Maloney and a LASIK Lawsuit
I did a search on him and found this. It is just a part of the page. Case Number: SC073643 JUDY JADE CHANG VS. ROBERT K. MALONEY, M.D., ET AL. Filing Date: 08/23/2002 Case Type: Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction) Status: Pending Consolidated for all Proceedings: SC083557 on 03/03/2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Future Hearings 02/20/2007 at 08:30 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265 Final Status Conference (T/D = 2/28/2007) 02/28/2007 at 09:00 am in department WEMALW at 23525 Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265 Jury Trial (@ 20 day estimate) On Mar 27, 4:03 pm, southeasteyec...@hotmail.com wrote: > I did a search on him and found this. It is just a part of the page. > > Case Number: SC073643 > JUDY JADE CHANG VS. ROBERT K. MALONEY, M.D., ET AL. Toyota has made cars that have caught fire, but I still like mine. Titanium bike frames have, reportedly, cracked mysteriously, but I still ride regularly. So ... what's your point?? Can you tell us, objectively, about the relative merits of each side in this case? Summary: This person had Lasik, and then an "enhancement". Floaters developed after the Lasik. Most majority-opinion medical doctors would agree that the Lasik does not produce floaters. But this truly shows the extent to which ANY MEDICAL PERSON must practice DEFENSIVE METHODS. And even the best doctor, being as careful as possible, can be subjected to any of these charges if something happens, after the surgery that is not connected with the original surgery. This truly defines and limits medical practice. Just one man's opinion. Otis > Filing Date: 08/23/2002 > Case Type: Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Malibu, CA 90265 > Jury Trial (@ 20 day estimate) On Mar 27, 7:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > And even the best doctor, being as careful as possible, > can be subjected to any of these charges if something [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Just one man's opinion. True. DOCTORS DO have this sort of exposure (for which they carry insurance). Unlicensed practitioners, on the other hand, could ruin anybody's (including their own niece's) vision and proceed with impunity. Couldn't they, Otis? One wonders what the purpose of "South East Eye Center" is in posting these statements. Perhaps they could explain. Just one man's opinion. Otis On Mar 27, 10:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Summary: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Mar 27, 8:11�pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Summary: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Otis, this case is not about floaters! Ms. Chang has irregular astigmatism, extreme dry eye, chunks of metallic debris in her eye visible to the naked eye, and was not informed that the procedure performed was not FDA-approved. Her vision is not correctable even with a hard contact lens. The lawsuit has been dragging on since 2002, and is now scheduled for trial in October, 2007. > Otis, this case is not about floaters! Ms. Chang has irregular > astigmatism, extreme dry eye, chunks of metallic debris in her eye > visible to the naked eye, and was not informed that the procedure > performed was not FDA-approved. Her vision is not correctable even > with a hard contact lens. The lawsuit has been dragging on since > 2002, and is now scheduled for trial in October, 2007 Keller here knows everything about every lawsuit on the planet. The more frivilous, the more she "knows". >Otis, this case is not about floaters! Please forgive him. He's a bit of an idiot. Worse, though: he's an idiot on a mission. In that case, at lease, the two of you should get along quite nicely. Take care, Neil > Worse, though: he's an idiot on a mission. In that case, at lease, > the two of you should get along quite nicely. > > Take care, > > Neil Think of the "children". On Mar 27, 8:03 pm, southeasteyec...@hotmail.com wrote: > I did a search on him and found this. It is just a part of the page. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Malibu, CA 90265 > Jury Trial (@ 20 day estimate) here they go again. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.