Plaintiff Claimed Untreated Eye Pressure Damaged Pupil
On Oct. 19, 2001, plaintiff Randall Stern, 47, an investment banker, presented to Dr. B. David Gorman, an ophthalmologist. Two days earlier, Stern had gone to see his primary doctor with complaints of a red right eye, sensitivity to light and headaches. That doctor had diagnosed conjunctivitis, or pink eye. The doctor gave Stern some eye medicine and referred him to Gorman for additional treatment.On Oct. 19, Gorman also diagnosed conjunctivitis, and he prescribed stronger medicine. Stern’s condition worsened over the ensuing weekend, and he returned to Gorman’s office the following Monday. At this time, Gorman checked Stern’s intraocular pressure, found it to be elevated and determined that Stern was suffering from iritis or anterior uveitis–both conditions refer to inflammation of an eye’s iris. Gorman prescribed medicine to treat the iritis and the intraocular pressure.Stern continued to seek treatment from Gorman for several weeks, until it was determined that the pupil in Stern’s right eye had become fully and permanently dilated.
Stern sued Gorman. He alleged that Gorman failed to timely test the eye’s intraocular pressure and that Gorman’s failure constituted medical malpractice.
Stern claimed that Gorman should have checked his eye’s intraocular pressure when he first presented to him on Oct. 19. He contended that if Gorman had diagnosed the high pressure sooner, it could have been treated and diminished any permanent damage to his eye.
Gorman contended that it was not appropriate to check the intraocular pressure of an eye that has conjunctivitis, as was previously thought. He also argued that there was no proof that the pressure would have been elevated at the Oct. 19 visit.
Stern claimed that his right eye was left with a permanently dilated pupil. He alleged that as a result, he suffers sensitivity to light, problems with depth perception and difficulty reading.
Stern asked the jury to award him $120,000 for his past pain and suffering and $500,000 for his future pain and suffering. His claim of lost earnings and his wife’s derivative claim of loss of services were discontinued prior to the trial.
Defense counsel contended that the true cause of the dilated pupil was not the intraocular pressure, but the iritis. He contended that the disease caused damage to the dilating muscle of Stern’s eye and that it was a known risk of the condition.
Defense counsel also disputed the impact Stern’s eye condition has on his life. She contended that because Stern had 20/20 vision, he could use sunglasses and similar things to deal with his eye condition.
The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Gorman did not depart from generally accepted medical standards.