Many people make mistakes on the job. However, when you are a doctor, your carelessness can have harmful and expensive consequences. This case involved a simple matter of a swapped prescription but resulted in great pain to the plaintiff and, hence, a lawsuit.
Filed: June 10, 2016
Jurisdiction: Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Category: Medical Malpractice
Plaintiff: Robert Levin
Defendant(s): Abe Kaplan, M.D., Eye Physicians, S.C., and John/Jane Doe
In this case, recently filed in Cook County, Robert Levin is seeking damages from his doctor, Abe Kaplan, and the doctor’s employer. In June of 2014, Levin sought the services of Kaplan because he needed an eye doctor and the latter specialized in ophthalmology. Unfortunately, the kind of care that Levin received was not what he was expecting, at least according to him. Apparently, Kaplan implanted the wrong intraocular acrylic lens onto Levin’s eye. In fact, it was meant for another patient. In his complaint, Levin goes on to say that the incorrect implantation caused him great pain, increased dizziness, and significant pain. He sued the doctor and the doctor’s employer for the injury and the ensuing damages including the follow-up surgery that was required to fix the original procedure.
Claims and Damages:
As mentioned above, Levin sued his eye doctor for malpractice as well as the related company, Eye Physicians, S.C. Here are the grounds which constitute his case: First, Dr. Kaplan negligently and carelessly implanted an intraocular acrylic lens intended for a different patient into Levin's right eye; second, he failed to verify the patient information on the intraocular acrylic lens before implanting it into Levin's right eye; third, he failed to supervise other persons who assisted in the surgical procedure, including some of his unknown employees.
According to his complaints, these errors legally and factually caused his injuries and damages. Further down in his suit, Levin alleges much of the same claims against Kaplan’s employer except he also adds that Levin did these things within his scope of employment thereby opening up the company to liability.
Due to this botched operation, Levin claimed the following damages:
- Past and future medical bills including a subsequent operation to fix the original surgery.
- Personal injuries and discomfort due to the improper fitting lens.
- 735 ILCS 5/2-622
- 740 ILCS 180
- 750 ILCS 65/15
- 735 ILCS 5/13-212
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1116
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1115
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1114
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1205
- The conundrum of this case might be to exhibit that the misplaced prescription actually caused significant damage, short-term or long-term. While the event did require a corrective surgery, that damage is easily quantifiable and the plaintiff might do well to memorialize how the accident seriously affected him.
- The plaintiff might want to investigate the exact differences between the lens that was used and the lens that should have been used. Understanding this deviation will help him delineate just how far outside the standard of care that the doctor went. On the other hand, if the difference is minor, the doctor might offer that this was only a minor breach merely warranting a repayment of the medical expenses that it cost the plaintiff to redo the procedure.