Dr. Robert Maloney Sued by Yvette Boleslav for Medical Malpractice,
Assault and Battery

LAW OFFICES OF MARK P. ROBINSON
MARK P. ROBINSON - STATE BAR NO. 21597
One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: 213/485-1798

Attorneys for Plaintiff
YVETTE BOLESLAV
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT - SANTA MONICA

YVETTE BOLESLAV,

Plaintiff,
v.

ROBERT MALONEY, M.D.; MALONEY
VISION INSTITUTE; PATRICK DOYLE,
M.D.; EYES OF WESTWOOD; and DOES 1
TO 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. SC061237

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGED
AGAINST HEALTHCARE
PROVIDER; AND DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL

TRIAL DATE: None

Plaintiff, YVETTE BOLESLAV, files this Complaint for Damages against
healthcare
provider for negligence and alleges as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE)

1. The full extent of the facts linking each of the fictitiously
designated defendants with this cause of action, are unknown to
plaintiff, and the true names or capacities, whether individual,
plural, corporate, partnership, associate, or otherwise, of each of
the defendants DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff.
Plaintiff therefore
sues each of those defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that each of the
defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some
manner for the events and happenings herein referred to of negligent,
tortious and unlawful conduct, which negligently, tortiously and
unlawfully proximately caused injury and damages to plaintiff as
herein alleged. Plaintiff will hereafter ask leave of Court to amend
this Complaint to show those defendants' true names and capacities
after the same have been ascertained.

2. At all times herein mentioned, the following defendants were
holding themselves out to the public as medical doctors and/or
healthcare providers, licensed and authorized to provide healthcare
service in California: defendants ROBERT MALONEY, O.D.; MALONEY VISION
INSTITUTE; PATRICK DOYLE, O.D.; EYES OF WESTWOOD and LASER CARE
MEDICAL CENTER (hereinafter "defendants") and DOES 1 to 100 inclusive,
and each of them.

3. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants, including
DOE defendants, acted as an agent for each and all of the other co-
defendants, and at all pertinent times acted within the course and
scope of the agency. At all times herein mentioned, defendants MALONEY
and DOYLE, through a system of referral, would jointly treat and
advise certain patients, referring them back and forth, depending on
the particular medical service, which was calculated to be rendered.
At various times, this afore-described system of medical referral was
tendered to plaintiff, herein by each of the aforementioned
defendants, commencing no later than May of 1998, and continuing to a
date not earlier than mid-December of 1998. In the latter part of June
of 1998, plaintiff submitted to laser surgery, for which she was
prepared by defendant DOYLE, and received the actual surgery at the
hands of defendant MALONEY. In either late December of 1998 or January
of 1999, plaintiff received a so-called "enhancement surgery at the
hands of defendant MALONEY. Thereafter, the follow-up treatment was
conducted by defendant DOYLE.

4. Prior to plaintiff receiving the medical services heretofore
described, plaintiff had experienced a reduction in her vision of her
right eye over a period of months. After a short period of
examinations, treatment, advice and prescription, each of the
defendants advised the plaintiff that the laser surgery, which would
be performed by the defendant MALONEY, should increase her vision.
Prior to the June 1998 surgery, plaintiff inquired of the defendants,
and each of them, as to whether the type of surgery contemplated would
have any potential to create and/or increase so-called "floaters" in
either of plaintiff's eyes. Plaintiff had, for a period of a number of
weeks, prior to June of 1998, experienced a small number of floaters.
In response to plaintiff's inquiry, defendants, and each of them
advised plaintiff that the mechanics of the particular advised surgery
could not cause or increase any condition of "floaters" and that no
such reaction was being reported by patients of other professionals
around the United States, who were rendering the same type of laser
surgery contemplated for plaintiff. Plaintiff relied upon the
professional opinions of defendants, and each of them, and submitted
to the contemplated surgery.