LawyerRachael was diagnosed with cataracts by her optometrist and told that she needed to see an ophthalmologist and may need surgery.
She was referred to Dr Seen, a local ophthalmologist. Dr Seen examined Rachael and recommended cataract surgery. He told her that he could insert a lens which would correct her vision and she would no longer need glasses. Unfortunately, there was no discussion about the risks associated with the use of certain lenses. Rachael was put on the surgical list at the public Hospital.
Later that year Rachael received a letter advising that she had been scheduled for surgery on Dr Saw’s list, a doctor she had never met. Later, Rachael received a telephone call from the hospital advising her that there were vacancies on Dr Tosee’s and her surgery could be done much sooner. Again, Rachael had never met Dr Tosee. However, given the delays in the public she agreed to Dr Tosee performing the cataract surgery. Rachael did not meet Dr Tosee before the surgery despite assurances that she would. Consequently, there was no discussion about the nature of the procedure, nor the risks associated with it.
Rachael was given an anaesthetic but was still conscious throughout the surgery. At one point she heard Dr Tosee ask the nurses to leave the operating room and then complained about the difficulty he was having inserting the lens. After the surgery, an eye-pad was placed over her eye and a review scheduled in one week.
A few days later Rachael was reviewed by Dr Tosee who removed the eye pad. To her shock she had very blurry vision. Dr Tosee told her that he had to leave her short sighted so she could read and could not put the cataract back. He arranged for a further review in two weeks. Rachael was understandably shocked and upset by Dr Tosee’s attitude and treatment and decided not to see Dr Tosee anymore.
The clinic booked her review in with Dr Seen. Dr Seen explained that the cataract surgery may have caused an astigmatism and suggested she see an optometrist to get new glasses. The next day she attended her optometrist who told her that the wrong lens had been inserted during the surgery and that she may need surgery to fix it or have glasses made with 2 different lenses. She was later told by Dr Saw that this was all that could be expected in the public system and that he fix the problem as a private for $4,000 or she could go back on the public list and wait another 12-18 months.
Having lost confidence in the clinic, she was referred to a fourth doctor, Dr Vision who confirmed the wrong lens had been inserted. Dr Vision replaced the lens and Rachael regained 20/20 vision in her eye and was able to drive without glasses.
Rachael sought legal advice from The Law Office of Conrad Curry who were able to settle her matter before Court proceedings were issued for a significant cash payment. We were able to show that Dr Tosee failed to obtain Rachael’s consent prior to the surgery nor properly explain the nature of the operation and the risks associated with the type of lens used. A patient should be fully informed of the risks of their treatment.
If you think you have been adversely impacted by a failure to properly inform or obtain consent, we would be pleased to speak with you in an obligation-free consultation to advise you about your options. You can click here to book an appointment or call us on (02) 4050 0330 for a no obligation consultation to discuss your potential claim.
