Plaintiff underwent surgical removal of a cataract that was impairing his vision when he suffered a complication of the surgery, prolapse of the iris, which is when the iris migrates through the incision that allowed the removal of the cataract. When the iris could not be fully reset our client removed a portion of the iris by an iridectomy. The patient brought suit claiming his vision in his left eye had been significantly impaired as a result. At trial plaintiff’s expert testified that the prolapse could have been resolved without the performance of the iridectomy.
Mr. Gold argued to the jury through an expert ophthalmologist that the prolapse was a result of a retrobulbar hemorrhage and that the hemorrhage prevented a less-invasive method of correcting the prolapse. Mr. Gold also argued that the hemorrhage was a result of the plaintiff’s combined use of aspirin and an anticoagulant, Plavix. While our client acknowledged the plaintiff’s use of Plavix, he testified that plaintiff had not disclosed the simultaneous use of aspirin which would have led him to postpone the surgery had he known.
After the conclusion of the trial, the jury rendered a defense verdict.