£150k obtained after serious negligence left man with tunnel vision

Julie Crossley, an associate legal executive at Ashtons Legal, has obtained £150,000 for a man who underwent numerous optical procedures over a five year period that left him with permanent damage to his vision.

Mr S first attended opticians in 2007 to enquire about his suitability for laser eye surgery as wearing glasses was problematic in his employment and contact lenses had been unsuccessful.

He was told that if he underwent the surgery, he would not need glasses for approximately another 20 years, however he was not told about the potential risks of the surgery.

Following his first surgery, Mr S complained of poor vision in one of his eyes. It was later discovered that there was some debris in his eye, for which he was given eye drops and told to wait it out.

Several months later, after no improvement, Mr S was referred to an Optical Express branch. He trialled prevue lenses, however these only worsened his vision. He was recommended further surgery.

He was informed that refractive lens exchange surgery on his left eye would help him, although he would have to wait a few years as he was currently too young to undergo the procedure.

After three years of poor vision he underwent the corrective surgery. Following this, he started to experience a black arc in the temporal vision of his left eye.

After trying out another lens that didn’t help, he underwent YAG laser surgery – again, he was not told about the potential risks of this surgery.

In a post-operative review it was noted that Mr S was complaining of glare and ‘smeary’ vision. At this point, he was no longer able to drive at night.

Even after the procedure, Mr S was still not told that his most recent surgery had risks of developing symptoms that could negatively impact eyesight, but instead was told that his poor vision was as a result of only having the refractive lens exchange surgery that he previously had on his left eye, rather than both eyes.

Mr S then had the same lens inserted into his right eye that he had previously had put in his left eye. This resulted in his extremely blurred vision which developed into tunnel vision.

Following this he saw a consultant ophthalmologist for a second opinion who informed him that there was little prospect of improvements in his visual symptoms and that no further surgery was recommended.

Julie comments: “My client was continually reassured that each procedure would improve his vision and as a result he underwent numerous treatments over several years before seeking a second opinion. He was encouraged to undergo these procedures but was not warned about the potential risks they held. As a result there were a catalogue of both consent and procedure errors which have affected his ability to carry out his work and have had a significant impact on his personal and social life.”