- OPHTHALMOLOGICAL MALPRACTICE - ALLEGED IMPROPER DELAY SCHEDULING EYE EXAMINATION AND IMPROPERLY MONITORED PRESSURES DURING CATARACT SURGERY - PLAINTIFF REGAINS 20/40 VISION.

New York County

In this ophthalmological malpractice action, the plaintiff contended that the co-defendant ophthalmologists, who shared an office, failed to properly monitor pressures during an operative procedure performed on the plaintiff’s cataract. The plaintiff maintained that when her eye began bothering her, she spoke to a secretary in the office who advised her that her eye condition did not need to be examined until the following week, resulting in delay of the cataract surgery. The evidence indicated that the defendant Gould was the operating ophthalmologist and that the defendant DeMola was the assistant surgeon. The plaintiff’s expert ophthalmologist contended that the surgical procedure was improperly performed because the plaintiff’s pressures were not properly monitored during the operation. Medical records indicated that the plaintiff’s best vision had been 20/40 prior to the surgery, and that after the cataract surgery, the plaintiff regained vision of 20/40. The defendant DeMola maintained that his secretary did not schedule the appointment and defendant Gould testified that the call was never made, but that if it had been received, his secretary would have scheduled the appointment. The plaintiff produced a phone bill indicating that the phone call had been made to the defendant’s office. The evidence also indicated that the plaintiff’s operative procedure was not scheduled until three days following her eye examination, which occurred one week later than the plaintiff preferred. The jury found in favor of the defendants. Elia Salvatore vs. Gould and DeMola. Case no. ________-8-85; Judge Michael Dontzin, 8-88.

Attorney for plaintiff: Herman Glaser of Glaser, Shandell & Blitz in Manhattan; Attorney for defendant: Michael D. Shahoub of Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach in Manhattan.