Case Results
Gordon and Silber Wins Defense Verdict for Ophthalmologist Alleged to have Failed to Test
Plaintiff's Intra-Ocular Pressure Leading to a Permanently Dilated Pupil — June 2007.
Type of Case: Medical malpractice. Alleged failure to test intra-ocular pressure after presentation
with signs and symptoms of inflammation inside the eye, allegedly resulting in a permanently
dilated pupil, with permanent limitation in vision.
Venue: New York Supreme Court, New York County.
Background Facts: Plaintiff a forty-eight year old male presented to our client after experiencing
redness, teariness, photosensitivity and head throbbing behind his right eye for five days. An eye
pressure test was not conducted on the first visit. The patient returned three days later for an
unscheduled visit with very high eye pressure.
Special Problems: The plaintiff has presented with photosensitivity and headache, neither of
which would have been related to conjunctivitis.
Our Strategy: Our primary defense was that our client believed that he was confronted with a
simple case of conjunctivitis and did not test the intra-ocular pressure, due to concern of further
contamination to plaintiff's eyes. We also argued that plaintiff's uveitis caused the dilated pupil,
not the intra-ocular pressure increase.
On cross-examination, we were able to obtain a concession from plaintiff's expert that damage
from intra-ocular pressure would also have caused damage to the optic nerve as well as visual
field defect, neither of which existed. We also got plaintiff's expert to admit there was no way to
mathematically estimate what the intra-ocular pressure would have been when our client first
examined the plaintiff. Our own expert testified that the trans-illumination and iris atrophy were
evidence of damage from iritis, not increased pressure. We also presented evidence that had
pressure caused the dilation, the dilation would have been evident when plaintiff was re-examined
by our client three days later.
Result: After deliberating for a short period of time, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding no
departure by our client.
|