Brent Hanson - USAEyes.info
2006-12-02 18:47:39 UTC
ERIC S. ERDMANN, ESQ. SBN 171707
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC S. ERDMANN, P.C.
9999 Business Park Ave., Suite A
San Diego, CA 92131
Tel: (858) 653-5813
Fax: (858) 549-3094
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
PAULA FIALKOFF
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRIAN S. BOXER WACHLER an individual, JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE MEDICAL
GROUP type of business unknown, FREEDOM VISION LASER CENTER type of business
unknown, UCLA LASER REFRACTIVE CENTER type of business unknown, and DOES
1-25 inclusive,
Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff PAULA FIALKOFF is, and at all times herein mentioned
was, a resident of San Diego, California who contracted with the defendant
and had performed on her person an operation in the State of California,
county of Los Angeles.
2. BRIAN S. BOXER WACHLER is, and at all times herein mentioned
was an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.
3. Defendants, JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE MEDICAL GROUP type of
business unknown, FREEDOM VISION LASER CENTER type of business unknown, UCLA
LASER REFRACTIVE CENTER is a business entity type unknown, are all located
and doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
4. At all times relevant all medical procedures and/or conduct
leading to this lawsuit occurred within the County of Los Angeles, State of
California. Prior to filing this lawsuit the plaintiff gave notice of
intent to commence an action.
5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues
these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this
Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the
fictitiously named Defendants are negligently responsible in some manner for
the occurrences herein alleged, and that each Plaintiff's injuries as herein
alleged were legally caused by Defendants, and each of their negligence.
6. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the
agent, servant and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in
doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and
scope of their agency, servancy and/or employment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
7. On or about January 16-18, 2001, Plaintiff Paula Fialkoff
presented herself for an eye exam and operation. The purpose of the exam
was to determine whether she was a Candidate for some type of LASIK and/or
Keretomony [keretectomy] procedure.
8. The [she] was advised that the procedure included the new
LADAR Vision procedures based on the pamphlets the clinic gave Ms. Fialkoff.
9. Upon arrival and examination, Ms. Fialkoff was advised by Dr.
Solney that she would not be a Candidate for the procedure due to that
apparent [a]stigmatism in her left eye.
10. At that point another doctor at the clinic named Brian S.
Boxer Wachler came into the exam room and informed Plaintiff that he could
perform the procedure. However, due to her condition she was advised that
the procedure would cost an additional $2,500.00.
11. On January 18, 2001, Ms. Fialkoff arrived with members of her
family to the defendant Freedom Vision Laser Center. The members of her
family were led into an observation room so they could see the operation and
use of the new LADAR vision device.
12. Ms. Fialkoff was placed on a table face up looking toward the
ceiling when the procedures began. As the staff of the defendants started
the LADAR and or other medical device, and before an initial cut was made,
the machine abruptly aborted the procedure. The staff attempted a second
time. The machine aborted again. Said aborted procedures happened on at
least two occasions possibly three or four occasions prior to the operation
beginning on the plaintiff. On information and belief, at that point the
defendant Dr. Boxer Welcher [Wachler] either over rode the safety procedures
or had caused someone else to do so, and began the operation.
13. During that operation the machine abruptly aborted again.
Several attempts were made to restart the machine. However, the machine
kept aborting. With the eye partially operated on the medical procedures
was stopped.
14. Eventually, Ms. Fialkoff, now almost totally blind was
transferred to another location of the defendants where an A/K procedure was
performed on her right eye by another doctor under the guidance of Dr. Boxer
Welcher [Wachler]. For the next 48 hours Ms. Fialkoff remained in an almost
blind condition, while on information and belief the defendants attempted to
fix the machine used on the plaintiff.
15. She remained in that condition until she received a call from
Dr. Boxer Welcher's [Wachler's] office to report to another location to
finish her eye operation. She was sent home.
16. As a result of the defendants overriding safety protocols and
or the negligent operation of the machine, the Plaintiff's vision has
continued to deteriorate. Her sight is not now fully correctable with
glasses.
17. As a direct result of the defendants conduct, a prior
existing skin condition the plaintiff suffers from, since the operation, has
spread into her eyes. That condition now causes puss filled boils to form
inside her eye lids causing irritation and almost near blindness when the
condition is active. The plaintiff was either not asked about prior
existing skin conditions or adequately inquired of by the defendants prior
to the plaintiff's operations.
18. Defendants, and each of them, fell below the standard of care
in the local community for medical professionals when they performed the
medical procedures without first properly diagnosing the plaintiff's prior
medical condition and evaluating the possible effects such a condition could
have on the plaintiff's vision, properly obtaining informed consent from the
plaintiff concerning the possiable [possible] affects her prior medical
condition could have on her vision.
19. Further each defendant was negligent when they overrode
safety procedures in an attempt to continue with an operation that should
have never been performed based on the condition of the medical machinery
and or devices or the defendants lack of knowledge how to use it.
20. The Defendants and DOES 1-25, and each of them thereby
directly and legally caused the injuries and damages to all Plaintiffs as
hereinafter described.
21. As a further proximate result of the negligence of
Defendants, and each of them, all Plaintiffs suffered damages for incidental
expenses, including, but not limited to, the cost of medications, gas, and
other out-of-pocket expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.
22. As a further proximate result of the negligence of the
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was prevented from attending to her
usual occupation, and has been damaged thereby in an amount according to
proof at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment for every cause of action as follows:
For general damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
For medical, incidental and related expenses in an amount according to proof
at trial;
For lost income (past and future) in an amount to be proven at trial;
For costs of suit herein incurred;
For pre-judgment and post-judgment interests; and
For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend these pleading[s] for causes
of actions that would support a request for punitive damages pursuant to
C.C.P. section 425.13.
DATED: April 11, 2002 LAW OFFICES OF ERIC S. ERDMANN P.C.
ERIC. S. ERDMANN
Attorney for Plaintiff
http://usaeyes.info/lawsuits/dr.-brian-boxer-wachler-sued-by-paula-fialkoff-
for-medical-malpractice.html
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC S. ERDMANN, P.C.
9999 Business Park Ave., Suite A
San Diego, CA 92131
Tel: (858) 653-5813
Fax: (858) 549-3094
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
PAULA FIALKOFF
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRIAN S. BOXER WACHLER an individual, JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE MEDICAL
GROUP type of business unknown, FREEDOM VISION LASER CENTER type of business
unknown, UCLA LASER REFRACTIVE CENTER type of business unknown, and DOES
1-25 inclusive,
Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff PAULA FIALKOFF is, and at all times herein mentioned
was, a resident of San Diego, California who contracted with the defendant
and had performed on her person an operation in the State of California,
county of Los Angeles.
2. BRIAN S. BOXER WACHLER is, and at all times herein mentioned
was an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.
3. Defendants, JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE MEDICAL GROUP type of
business unknown, FREEDOM VISION LASER CENTER type of business unknown, UCLA
LASER REFRACTIVE CENTER is a business entity type unknown, are all located
and doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
4. At all times relevant all medical procedures and/or conduct
leading to this lawsuit occurred within the County of Los Angeles, State of
California. Prior to filing this lawsuit the plaintiff gave notice of
intent to commence an action.
5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues
these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this
Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the
fictitiously named Defendants are negligently responsible in some manner for
the occurrences herein alleged, and that each Plaintiff's injuries as herein
alleged were legally caused by Defendants, and each of their negligence.
6. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the
agent, servant and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in
doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and
scope of their agency, servancy and/or employment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
7. On or about January 16-18, 2001, Plaintiff Paula Fialkoff
presented herself for an eye exam and operation. The purpose of the exam
was to determine whether she was a Candidate for some type of LASIK and/or
Keretomony [keretectomy] procedure.
8. The [she] was advised that the procedure included the new
LADAR Vision procedures based on the pamphlets the clinic gave Ms. Fialkoff.
9. Upon arrival and examination, Ms. Fialkoff was advised by Dr.
Solney that she would not be a Candidate for the procedure due to that
apparent [a]stigmatism in her left eye.
10. At that point another doctor at the clinic named Brian S.
Boxer Wachler came into the exam room and informed Plaintiff that he could
perform the procedure. However, due to her condition she was advised that
the procedure would cost an additional $2,500.00.
11. On January 18, 2001, Ms. Fialkoff arrived with members of her
family to the defendant Freedom Vision Laser Center. The members of her
family were led into an observation room so they could see the operation and
use of the new LADAR vision device.
12. Ms. Fialkoff was placed on a table face up looking toward the
ceiling when the procedures began. As the staff of the defendants started
the LADAR and or other medical device, and before an initial cut was made,
the machine abruptly aborted the procedure. The staff attempted a second
time. The machine aborted again. Said aborted procedures happened on at
least two occasions possibly three or four occasions prior to the operation
beginning on the plaintiff. On information and belief, at that point the
defendant Dr. Boxer Welcher [Wachler] either over rode the safety procedures
or had caused someone else to do so, and began the operation.
13. During that operation the machine abruptly aborted again.
Several attempts were made to restart the machine. However, the machine
kept aborting. With the eye partially operated on the medical procedures
was stopped.
14. Eventually, Ms. Fialkoff, now almost totally blind was
transferred to another location of the defendants where an A/K procedure was
performed on her right eye by another doctor under the guidance of Dr. Boxer
Welcher [Wachler]. For the next 48 hours Ms. Fialkoff remained in an almost
blind condition, while on information and belief the defendants attempted to
fix the machine used on the plaintiff.
15. She remained in that condition until she received a call from
Dr. Boxer Welcher's [Wachler's] office to report to another location to
finish her eye operation. She was sent home.
16. As a result of the defendants overriding safety protocols and
or the negligent operation of the machine, the Plaintiff's vision has
continued to deteriorate. Her sight is not now fully correctable with
glasses.
17. As a direct result of the defendants conduct, a prior
existing skin condition the plaintiff suffers from, since the operation, has
spread into her eyes. That condition now causes puss filled boils to form
inside her eye lids causing irritation and almost near blindness when the
condition is active. The plaintiff was either not asked about prior
existing skin conditions or adequately inquired of by the defendants prior
to the plaintiff's operations.
18. Defendants, and each of them, fell below the standard of care
in the local community for medical professionals when they performed the
medical procedures without first properly diagnosing the plaintiff's prior
medical condition and evaluating the possible effects such a condition could
have on the plaintiff's vision, properly obtaining informed consent from the
plaintiff concerning the possiable [possible] affects her prior medical
condition could have on her vision.
19. Further each defendant was negligent when they overrode
safety procedures in an attempt to continue with an operation that should
have never been performed based on the condition of the medical machinery
and or devices or the defendants lack of knowledge how to use it.
20. The Defendants and DOES 1-25, and each of them thereby
directly and legally caused the injuries and damages to all Plaintiffs as
hereinafter described.
21. As a further proximate result of the negligence of
Defendants, and each of them, all Plaintiffs suffered damages for incidental
expenses, including, but not limited to, the cost of medications, gas, and
other out-of-pocket expenses in an amount according to proof at trial.
22. As a further proximate result of the negligence of the
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was prevented from attending to her
usual occupation, and has been damaged thereby in an amount according to
proof at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment for every cause of action as follows:
For general damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
For medical, incidental and related expenses in an amount according to proof
at trial;
For lost income (past and future) in an amount to be proven at trial;
For costs of suit herein incurred;
For pre-judgment and post-judgment interests; and
For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend these pleading[s] for causes
of actions that would support a request for punitive damages pursuant to
C.C.P. section 425.13.
DATED: April 11, 2002 LAW OFFICES OF ERIC S. ERDMANN P.C.
ERIC. S. ERDMANN
Attorney for Plaintiff
http://usaeyes.info/lawsuits/dr.-brian-boxer-wachler-sued-by-paula-fialkoff-
for-medical-malpractice.html