By Niki Kelly
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette
INDIANAPOLIS - The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday about whether
the medical malpractice suit of a northeast Indiana man left nearly blind in one
eye can move forward.
In 2001, L. Thomas Booth sued Dr. Robert G. Wiley, Dr. Ronald Norlund and Midwest Eye Consultants in Wabash, but a trial court judge found the man had not sued within the statute of limitations and dismissed the case.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reinstated the case last year, but the Indiana Supreme Court vacated that opinion and is reviewing the facts.
The crux of the legal argument is when Booth should have known enough to
suspect that a Lasik eye surgery first performed in November 1998 might have
contributed to severe impairment in his right eye.
Wiley performed the laser surgery on Booth at that time and again in February
1999 based on a referral from Norlund. According to court records, Norlund
suggested the surgery despite Booth's history of glaucoma and cataracts.
After the Lasik surgery, Booth underwent several other eye operations in relation to his cataracts.
Under law, Booth had two years from the date of the original surgery - or until November 2000 - to claim malpractice.
But Booth's attorney, James Fenton, contends Booth didn't understand there was a connection between his worsening eyesight and the Lasik surgeries until after that period lapsed.
It wasn't until December 2000 that another doctor told Booth that Lasik surgery should not have been performed because of his pre-existing conditions. Fenton said Lasik surgery conducted before cataract surgery greatly complicates or negates the cataract surgery.
After this assessment, Booth sued in July 2001.
Dane Tubergen, who represents Wiley, argued Booth should have known something was wrong in 1999 when a separate doctor found Booth had permanent vision loss due to lack of blood supply.
If Booth had looked further into the matter then and determined the Lasik surgery as the cause of his poor eyesight, Tubergen said, he still would have had until November 2000 to file. Under Tubergen's argument, Booth missed that window by eight months.
"He had received enough facts such that a reasonably diligent person would have gone forward to discover malpractice," Tubergen said.
Several justices pointed out, though, that the 1999 exam simply told him what was wrong with his eyes - not what might have caused it.
www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news
Posted by Admin at April 8, 2004 02:08 PM