IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
RONALD PASQUALINO,
CASE NO: 00200351 (21)
FL BAR NO.: 353991
Plaintiff,
vs.
TLC THE LASER CENTER (INSTITUTE), INC., a
Maryland Corporation, operating as TLC Laser Eye Center,
Fort Lauderdale, JON S. JACOBS, O.D., and
STANLEY BRAVERMAN, M.D.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________/
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, RONALD PASQUALINO, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby files his Complaint against the Defendants, TLC THE LASER CENTER (INSTITUTE), INC. operating as TLC LASER EYE CENTER - FORT LAUDERDALE, (hereinafter “TLC”), JON S. JACOBS, O.D., (hereinafter “Dr. Jacobs”) and STANLEY BRAVERMAN, M. D. (hereinafter “Dr. Braverman”), and alleges:
COUNT I
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. This is an action for damages that exceed the jurisdiction of this court.
2. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff, RONALD PASQUALINO, was a
resident of Broward County, Florida, is over the age of eighteen and is sui
juris.
3. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, TLC, was a Maryland corporation
authorized to do business in Florida and was doing business as TLC Laser Eye
Center, located at 450 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 130, Fort Lauderdale, Broward
County, Florida.
4. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, DR. JACOBS, was a licensed
optometrist in the State of Florida and was Executive Director of the Defendant,
TLC, Fort Lauderdale.
5. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, DR. BRAVERMAN, was a licensed
medical doctor specializing in the area of ophthalmologist in the State of
Florida and was the Director of Surgery of the Defendant, TLC, Fort Lauderdale.
Dr. Braverman performs LASIK surgeries on a regular basis at TLC, Fort
Lauderdale.
6. The Plaintiff has met all conditions precedent to §766.104, Florida Statutes
and undersigned counsel certifies that a reasonable investigation of this claim
gives rise to a good faith belief that grounds exist for medical malpractice
against the defendants named herein. A copy of the Affidavit of James J. Salz,
M. D. is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
7. Prior to December 9, 1999, the Plaintiff had worn corrective lenses for much
of his life for nearsightedness.
8. In July of 1999, the Plaintiff was desirous of obtaining LASIK surgery, a
treatment for nearsightedness using lasers.
9. On or about July 29, 1999, the Plaintiff presented himself to the defendant,
TLC, for examination and screening for possible LASIK correction surgery.
10. The examination and screening including ocular measurements and topography
mapping of both eyes.
11. Following the examination and screening of July 29, 1999, TLC determined the
Plaintiff to be a candidate for LASIK and at the suggestion of the Defendants,
was scheduled for surgery on both eyes simultaneously, December 9, 1999.
12. On December 8, 1999, the day before the scheduled surgery, the Plaintiff
presented for additional topography mappings of both eyes.
13. On December 9, 1999, the Plaintiff underwent bilateral LASIK surgery,
performed by Defendant, DR. BRAVERMAN, with a target of O.D. (right eye) plano
and O.S. (left eye)-1.00 monovision.
14. Following the procedure, it initially appeared that the Plaintiff’s eyes
were stable. However, his visual acuity began to worsen and he returned to TLC
on May 1, 2000 for examination. At the time of this visit, the Plaintiff
complained of a dramatic drop in his visual acuity, more so on the left, with
glare in both eyes. He returned again on May 30, 1999 and the examination again
revealed a significant loss of visual acuity in the left eye. On June 20, 1999,
another examination revealed a further drop in visual acuity and the Plaintiff
was advised to undergo an enhancement procedure.
15. On June 22, 2000, the Defendant, DR. BRAVERMAN, performed an enhancement
procedure on the Plaintiff’s left eye. After one week, the Plaintiff had a
significant drop in his visual acuity.
16. The Plaintiff was examined at the suggestion and direction of defendant, DR.
BRAVERMAN and had topographic mapping done at least five (5) times at TLC
following the June 22, 2000 enhancement procedure.
17. On November 4, 2000, the Defendant, DR. BRAVERMAN, performed yet another
enhancement procedure on the Plaintiff’s left eye and again, the Plaintiff
experienced a significant drop in his visual acuity post operatively. He was
ultimately fit with a hard, gas permeable contact lense by Defendant, DR.
JACOBS. However, the Plaintiff was never told why he had such a failed response
to the original LASIK procedure or to the two (2) subsequent “enhancement”
procedures.
18. Dissatisfied with the results and treatment, the Plaintiff sought a second
opinion from Massachusetts Eye and Ear Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and at
Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, where doctors diagnosed the Plaintiff as having
keratoconus and informed him that he was never a candidate for LASIK and should
never have had the LASIK procedure performed.
19. As a result of the negligent LASIK procedures that were performed and the
failure to diagnose that the Plaintiff had keratoconus, the Plaintiff has
suffered severe, debilitating and permanent injuries, including but not limited
to damage to his corneas which now requires bilateral corneal transplants.
COUNT I
LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT
20. The Plaintiff reavers and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 of the General
Allegations above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges:
21. On or about July 29, 1999, the Plaintiff received a pre-procedure evaluation
from the Defendants, TLC and DR. BRAVERMAN, which included but was not limited
to topography mapping of the Plaintiff’s right and left eyes. The Plaintiff
was not informed that he had keratoconus in both eyes, a condition that is
contraindicated for LASIK surgery and placed the Plaintiff at risk for serious
complications, including total loss of vision.
22. On December 8, 1999, the Plaintiff again received a pre-procedure evaluation
at defendant, TLC from the Defendant, DR. BRAVERMAN, which included but was not
limited to topography mapping of the Plaintiff’s right and left eyes. Again,
the Plaintiff was not informed that he had keratoconus in both eyes and images
reflected in the topography maps taken on December 8, 1999 show the Plaintiff
was unstable and not a candidate for surgery on December 9, 1999.
23. Topography mapping performed on the Plaintiff prior to the subsequent
“enhancement procedures” on June 22, 2000 and then on November 4, 2000,
revealed unstable refractions and significant inferior corneal steepening
indicative of post LASIK keratoectasia. As a result, neither enhancement surgery
should have been performed.
24. The Defendants, TLC, DR. BRAVERMAN and DR. JACOBS, failed to advise the
Plaintiff that he was risking loss of his vision by undergoing the initial LASIK
procedure on both eyes as well as the two (2) subsequent “enhancement”
procedures.
25. Had the Plaintiff been informed that he had keratoconus and was not a
candidate for LASIK and was at risk for severe complications, including total
loss of vision, Plaintiff would not have undergone the procedures.
26. As a result of the negligent LASIK procedures that were performed, the
Plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent damage to both eyes resulting in
bilateral corneal transplants, past and future pain and suffering, mental
anguish, loss of earnings and loss of the ability to earn money in the future,
inconvenience, loss of the enjoyment of life, medical expenses past and future.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST STANLEY BRAVERMAN, M. D.
27. The Plaintiff reavers and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above as if
fully set forth herein and further alleges:
28. At all times material hereto, Defendant, DR. BRAVERMAN, was an agent,
apparent agent, servant and employee of TLC and acted on behalf of said
co-defendant within the course and scope of his employment/agency for said
Defendant and further, had a duty to exercise that degree of care and skill in
examining, diagnosing, treating and performing eye surgery on the Plaintiff,
commensurate with the professional standard of care.
29. The Defendant, DR. BRAVERMAN, was grossly negligent, careless and breached
said duty as follows:
Failing to properly examine and screen the Plaintiff pre-procedure;
Failing to properly diagnose the Plaintiff's keratoconus;
Failing to determine that the Plaintiff was not a proper candidate for LASIK;
Approving the Plaintiff and recommending Plaintiff for LASIK procedure when Defendant knew or should have known that the Plaintiff had keratoconus and was not a candidate for the procedure;
Incorrectly reading the topography maps of the Plaintiff or alternatively, by not recognizing that the topography maps Defendant, BRAVERMAN, used to screen the Plaintiff were topography maps of someone other than the Plaintiff;
Utilizing topography maps of someone other than the Plaintiff in pre-screening the Plaintiff for LASIK;
Negligently performing two (2) “enhancement” procedures on the Plaintiff when Defendant knew or should have know that the Plaintiff had keratoconus.
Negligently performing the original LASIK procedure and two (2) enhancement procedures after relying on incorrect, inaccurate and/or improperly read topography maps of the Plaintiff which would have revealed keratoconus.
30. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, BRAVERMAN, the Plaintiff has
suffered severe and permanent damage to both eyes resulting in bilateral corneal
transplants, past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of
earnings and loss of the ability to earn money in the future, inconvenience,
loss of the enjoyment of life, medical expenses past and future.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against this Defendant for all damages
and further demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
COUNT III
Negligence Against Dr. Jacobs
31. The Plaintiff reavers and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 of the General
Allegations as if fully set forth herein and alleges further:
32. At all times material hereto, Defendant, DR. JACOBS, was the Executive
Director of Defendant, TLC. He was their agent, apparent agent, employee and/or
representative and acted within the course and scope of his employment for
Defendant, TLC. As such, he had a duty to provide for the health, safety and
welfare of their patient and to provide medical care and treatment commensurate
with the prevailing professional standard of care.
33. Defendants, DR. JACOBS breached his professional duty to the Plaintiff by
failing to ensure that the Plaintiff received proper, appropriate and safe care
and treatment while a patient at TLC and further breached his professional duty
to the Plaintiff by failing to ensure that TLC and its agents, apparent agents,
and employees,
properly examine and screen the Plaintiff pre-procedure;
properly diagnose Plaintiff's keratoconus;
determine that the Plaintiff was not a proper candidate for LASIK;
that the LASIK procedures were not appropriate procedures for the Plaintiff when Defendant knew or should have known that the Plaintiff had keratoconus and was not a candidate for the LASIK procedures;
correctly performed and/or read the topography maps of the Plaintiff or alternatively, failing to recognize that the topography maps Defendant, BRAVERMAN, used to screen the Plaintiff were topography maps of someone other than the Plaintiff.
34. Defendant, DR. JACOBS, also breached his professional duty to the Plaintiff
by negligently permitting the performance of the original LASIK procedure and
two (2) subsequent enhancement procedures on the Plaintiff after the agents,
apparent agents and employees of defendant, TLC, relied on incorrect, inaccurate
and/or improperly read and interpreted topography maps which would have revealed
that the Plaintiff had keratoconus.
35. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, DR. JACOBS, the Plaintiff has
suffered severe and permanent damage to both eyes resulting in bilateral corneal
transplants, past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of
earnings and loss of the ability to earn money in the future, inconvenience,
loss of the enjoyment of life, medical expenses past and future.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against this Defendant for all damages
and further demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
COUNT IV
Vicarious Liability of TLC
36. The Plaintiff reavers and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 of the General
Allegations as if fully set forth herein and alleges further:
37. At all times material hereto, the Defendants, DR. BRAVERMAN and DR. JACOBS,
were employees, agents or apparent agents of the Defendant, TLC, and were acting
within the course and scope of their employment and authority.
38. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, TLC, is responsible and
vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, agents
or apparent agents acting within the course and scope of their employment or
agency.
39.At all times material hereto, the negligent acts or omissions and breach of
duty as set forth herein by and through its agents, representatives, apparent
agents and/or employees fell below the prevailing professional standard of care.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, TLC,
the Plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent damage to both eyes resulting in
bilateral corneal transplants, past and future pain and suffering, mental
anguish, loss of earnings and loss of the ability to earn money in the future,
inconvenience, loss of the enjoyment of life, medical expenses past and future.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against this Defendant for all damages
and further demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated this 18 day of February, 2002.
TRIPP SCOTT
Attorneys for Plaintiff
110 Southeast Sixth Street, 15th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-525-7500 telephone
954-761-8475 facsimile
By: ___________________
Peter G. Herman
Fla. Bar No. 353991