Meritorious basis affidavit 2
1. I am a physician duly licensed to practice medicine and currently practice in all areas of medicine with specialization in neuro-ophthalmology.
2. That I am knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in this particular case.
3. That I currently practice, and have practiced within the last six years, in the same area of healthcare medicine that is at issue in this particular action.
4. I am a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of Illinois and currently practice in all areas of medicine with specialization in neuro-ophthalmology.
5. I have reviewed the records concerning medical treatment provided to Sandra Shephard which include the medical records of Dr. Robert Epstein from treatment rendered in January of 2008 and March of 2008.
6. Based upon my review, I have determined that Mercy Center for Corrective Eye Surgery, by and through its employee, agent and/or apparent agent, including but not limited to, Robert Epstein, M.D., deviated from accepted standards of medical care on January 21, 2008 and March 10, 2008 in his() care and treatment of Sandra Shephard in the following manners:
a. Failed to verify appropriate implant positioning in the left eye;
b. Failed to correct the malposition of the implant in the plaintiff's left eye;
c. Failed to disclose to the Plaintiff, prior to subsequent laser capsulotomy surgery on her left eye, that the cyrstalens was malpositioned and therefore deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to choose surgical repositioning;
d. Proceeded with yag capsulotomy and lasiks procedures without giving the Plaintiff the opportunity to have the implant repositioned;
e. Failed to give the Plaintiff proper informed consent before performing lasik for presbyopia in the left eye; and
f. Performed surgical procedures to correct the Plaintiff's left eye for reading without first ascertaining her eye dominance.
7. These deviations from the accepted standard of care proximately caused Mrs. Shephard to suffer severe injuries.
8. It is my opinion that there is a meritorious claim of medical negligence in this case.
9. FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.