Category: 
February 7, 2010I had laser surgery (LASIK) in 1999 in Chester (UK). I’ve been back and forth the clinic (and the Cardiff clinic over the last few years) to this day (almost 10 years later). I had further treatment to my right eye in 2005 (Wavefront), which made my vision worse still.
After 10 years of no improvement from numerous visits to the Ultralase clinic, I’m wondering whether or not to seek legal advice (something I was advised by a friend to do many years ago). I am happy to discuss the extent of my side effects in a personal e-mail if you give me your e-mail address.
So I guess, my question comes in 2 parts, 1 – do you think I should look into taking legal action? and 2 – what other advice would you have for me?
Many Thanks for your time!!
LASIK is not always permanent to correct vision and there are some side effects that you pretty much sign away on before you have the surgery. You can seek legal advice, but I’m betting the contract you signed convered all their bases to protect them.
Horaayy..there are 6 comment(s) for me so far ;)
You need to find out what the statute of limitation is for taking any legal action.
References :
Yes seek legal advice. No, do not seek it from some anonymous person with no basis on this site.
References :
LASIK is not always permanent to correct vision and there are some side effects that you pretty much sign away on before you have the surgery. You can seek legal advice, but I’m betting the contract you signed convered all their bases to protect them.
References :
Law enforcement, 11 years
The big question would be the statute of limitations. In most cases you have two years to file a petition with the court but the statute of limitation does not start running at the time of the surgery, it starts at the time you discovered you were damaged.
I would advise you to discuss it with a personal injury attorney.
References :
1. You should consult a solicitor. There are plenty who’ll listen to your story for free in the first instance, and give you an idea of whether it is actually possible to take legal action. Legal action would likely involve getting an expert examination of your eyes.
2. Even if you don’t litigate, It may be worth your while to seek referal through the NHS to an eye specialist independent of Ultralase, if you haven’t already. An independent specialist might see a different case behind the eye damage or know of an alternative treatment.
3. Don’t be too disappointed if no one is willing to offer you legal advice on YA. Those most likely to be willing, like me, are unqualified law students who must be careful not to hold themselves out as lawyers, and are also mindful of possibilities of being sued for giving bad advice…
References :
UK law Grad, BVC grad
This question involves many factors but I have tried to be as concise as possible. I hope the information helps you.
When administered medical treatment of any kind a person is owed in law what is known as a “duty of care”. This duty of care extends to those who it is reasonable foreseeable may be injured by the acts or omissions of another person.
To succeed in an action for medical negligence a claimant must show:
1. A duty of care is owed
2. A breach of duty of care
3. Damage to the Plaintiff/claimant
All 3 elements must be proven to succeed. Establishing a duty of care is usually the easy part. A surgeon operating on a patient clearly owes a duty of care. A dental practitioner owes a duty of care. A driver in a car owes a duty of care to other drivers and pedestrians.
The duty of care is based on an objective test and is known as the “reasonable man”. It is the standard expected of anyone who has that particular skill or knowledge. What must be asked is was the treatment administered to you negligent and did it fall below a certain standard?
It is no good for the surgeon to defend themselves by saying “that’s the way it’s always been done” or “that’s the best I can do”. If the standard is below that of a reasonable competent surgeon then they have failed in their duty and can incur liability.
At first it may appear that the injuries you have suffered are the result of negligent medical treatment but is that the case? Since the operation has the condition of your eyes deteriorated due to some pre-existing condition that you have? We know, for example, that many people who live near nuclear power stations suffer from cancer but is the cancer a direct consequence of the power station. We know that cancer manifests itself in many different ways.
In order to succeed you need to show something in law called “causation”. This is simply that the acts of A cause resultant injury to B.
Further matters present themselves which are worthy of consideration. Since your operation has there been a “novus actus interveniens”. This is an intervening act which removes liability from a defendant.
Example: Jack is injured in a car accident and breaks his leg. On arrival at hospital he is administered incorrect medical treatment and has it amputated. The amputation is not the result of the person who caused it to be broken in the first place but the hospital!
Since your initial operation in 1999 has your injury been exacerbated by the others who have tried to correct your eyes?
If you eyes were in a normal healthy state prior to the operation in 1999 then you may be able to raised a legal maxim known as “Res ipsa loquitur”. This means that the “thing speaks for itself”. If you went in with perfectly good eyes (apart from being myopic etc.) and since then have had the problem then who else but Ultralese are to blame? Res ipsa loquitur is usually raised in cases where things do not arise ordinarily without the intervention of negligent acts. For example, mice are not found in tins of beans, cars do not run red lights unaided.
Cases in the United Kingdom are determined by an Act called the “Limitation Act 1980”. It sets out the time frame is which cases must be brought. Personal injury cases must be brought within 3 years of the injury occurring. However, that is not the end of the matter and it’s not so simple.
The Limitation Act 1980 does take into consideration injuries and conditions which may manifest themselves over a period of time and are not immediately apparent. This is to allow claimants the right to claim without being statute barred and causing injustice. A good example would be vibration white finger or lung conditions caused to miners. They may take years to show their effects on the human body. If you have been provided continuous treatment over a period of years and have given the company a reasonable opportunity of adequately resolving your condition in my opinion you are not statute barred. How long does it take before you can say “there’s something wrong”. That’s a question of fact in each case.
Further consider that if you have been going for treatment over such a long period of time does this not clearly show that Ultralese did not undertake their treatment correctly in the first place?
Email me if you need any more help and I will be glad to advise further.
Please note: I am unaware if it’s the same company who have dealt with this all along.
References :
Trained in law 7 years and specialised in contract and tort law.