SUE THE SURGEON?
- Neil
Replied by Neil on topic Small claims court
Posted 11 Oct 2016 15:00
Hi, Am I assuming that if you take recordings of conversations during your consultations with OE Consultants and staff it is illegal or not admissible in court?
I am having major problems with OE after surgery x 2.
I would love some advice on this as I'm about to issue court proceedings.
Firstly for buggering my sight up and secondly for them saying my vision is 20/20 when clearly it is not. asked for a refund but to no avail and they keep sending the standard you signed all the forms etc.
Help required!!!
_____________________
admin: I advise everyone to record! For more details please email with your phone number info@opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk
I am having major problems with OE after surgery x 2.
I would love some advice on this as I'm about to issue court proceedings.
Firstly for buggering my sight up and secondly for them saying my vision is 20/20 when clearly it is not. asked for a refund but to no avail and they keep sending the standard you signed all the forms etc.
Help required!!!
_____________________
admin: I advise everyone to record! For more details please email with your phone number info@opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1164
- Thanks: 153
Replied by admin on topic Update re Carmel Robertson v Optical Express
Posted 28 Aug 2016 22:59
Case Management Conference @ Croydon County Court on 17 August. (read previous post for history)
12 August: the Defendant’s lawyers hand delivered an application to the Court asking that the claim be struck out on the grounds that Carmel had incorrectly named the Defendant as Optical Express, instead of 123 Leeds Ltd, formerly Optical Express Southern Ltd, both companies now dissolved.
Plexus Law Ltd also advised Carmel that they objected to my providing 'advocacy services’ and intended to inform the court that, 'Ms Rodoy is not independent and that she will have a conflict of interest in acting in your best interests’.
Their evidence included a screenshot of my MBE FundRazr page, a copy of my 2015 Daily Mail interview, and the posts I’d published on OERML/Facebook, including an extract from their Court Application and partial transcription of Carmel’s recorded consult with Jonathan Carr (posted 14 August).
One of my legal advisers warned me that it was probable the Judge would have no choice but to agree with the Defence’s objection to me because of my Facebook posts.
Our challenge therefore was firstly to argue for me to stay in the courtroom, and - more importantly - request permission to amend the name of the Defendant to stop the case being struck out!
Plexus Law had sent trainee solicitor Rachel Auld to represent OE, suggesting that they were confident the Judge would strike out the case.
Chatting amicably with Rachel whilst we were waiting, she advised me that it was the first time Plexus Law had represented OE - I hadn't asked!
NB: I’ve since discovered that Russell Ambrose has coincidentally instructed Plexus Law to defend at least one claim issued against Optimax in Scotland.
District Judge Kathryn Major considered the Defence's objections to my presence and ruled in their favour. She did however listen to what I had to say about Optical Express, and read some of the documents I’d provided to the Court to help explain why they were so desperate to keep me out of the court room. I had also included a copy of reports filed by the police noting concerns for my safety due to threats from an OE employee, 'a murder suspect’.
She advised me that, knowing I was attending the Conference I should not have published the details I had, which stopped me being ‘independent', and that was the reason I was not allowed to remain and assist Carmel on this occasion. Judge Major did however assure me that this did not affect other actions I am helping people with.
Lesson learned, and a mistake I definitely won’t make again!
On this occasion my silence happily worked in Carmel’s interests, who was not required to say much at all thanks to Judge Major’s consideration.
She began by telling Rachel that she would not be striking out the claim, and then severely admonished her for ‘telling’ the Court that they MUST strike out the claim.
She told her that if OE wanted to make an application to have it struck out then they should have done it in the appropriate way, but it certainly wasn’t going to be considered that day, and she took a 'very dim view' of the way it had been dealt with.
Judge Major said they first had to deal with the issue of who the Defendant was.
Young Rachel was apparently confused when the Judge asked if OE was a franchise with independent companies trading under their name. Rachel agreed that it was her understanding that it was indeed a franchise.
Judge Major was completely baffled when numerous other company names were mentioned, and she told Rachel that if she was unable to understand the company structure then it was impossible that Carmel as a litigant in person would!
She quizzed Rachel about Optical Express’ connection to DCM Optical Clinics Ltd and 123 Leeds - the latter in liquidation.
She told Rachel that she did not accept that there was no connection between Optical Express, 123 Leeds and DCM Holdings Ltd, and if companies wind up to avoid liability then the Courts need to know about it!
Clever Judge Major made two rulings, (i) Optical Express (DCM Holdings Ltd?) ordered to provide statements of the company structure to Carmel within 2 weeks (due Wednesday) (ii) Carmel given permission to then amend name of Defendant
Carmel said the Judge appeared to think her claim is for medical negligence, warning her to check the time limitation, presumably because this is what the Defendants incorrectly based their argument on, but Carmel was too nervous to correct her!
A second Case Management Conference will be listed in due course, when Carmel will instruct a solicitor to represent her.
12 August: the Defendant’s lawyers hand delivered an application to the Court asking that the claim be struck out on the grounds that Carmel had incorrectly named the Defendant as Optical Express, instead of 123 Leeds Ltd, formerly Optical Express Southern Ltd, both companies now dissolved.
Plexus Law Ltd also advised Carmel that they objected to my providing 'advocacy services’ and intended to inform the court that, 'Ms Rodoy is not independent and that she will have a conflict of interest in acting in your best interests’.
Their evidence included a screenshot of my MBE FundRazr page, a copy of my 2015 Daily Mail interview, and the posts I’d published on OERML/Facebook, including an extract from their Court Application and partial transcription of Carmel’s recorded consult with Jonathan Carr (posted 14 August).
One of my legal advisers warned me that it was probable the Judge would have no choice but to agree with the Defence’s objection to me because of my Facebook posts.
Our challenge therefore was firstly to argue for me to stay in the courtroom, and - more importantly - request permission to amend the name of the Defendant to stop the case being struck out!
Plexus Law had sent trainee solicitor Rachel Auld to represent OE, suggesting that they were confident the Judge would strike out the case.
Chatting amicably with Rachel whilst we were waiting, she advised me that it was the first time Plexus Law had represented OE - I hadn't asked!
NB: I’ve since discovered that Russell Ambrose has coincidentally instructed Plexus Law to defend at least one claim issued against Optimax in Scotland.
District Judge Kathryn Major considered the Defence's objections to my presence and ruled in their favour. She did however listen to what I had to say about Optical Express, and read some of the documents I’d provided to the Court to help explain why they were so desperate to keep me out of the court room. I had also included a copy of reports filed by the police noting concerns for my safety due to threats from an OE employee, 'a murder suspect’.
She advised me that, knowing I was attending the Conference I should not have published the details I had, which stopped me being ‘independent', and that was the reason I was not allowed to remain and assist Carmel on this occasion. Judge Major did however assure me that this did not affect other actions I am helping people with.
Lesson learned, and a mistake I definitely won’t make again!
On this occasion my silence happily worked in Carmel’s interests, who was not required to say much at all thanks to Judge Major’s consideration.
She began by telling Rachel that she would not be striking out the claim, and then severely admonished her for ‘telling’ the Court that they MUST strike out the claim.
She told her that if OE wanted to make an application to have it struck out then they should have done it in the appropriate way, but it certainly wasn’t going to be considered that day, and she took a 'very dim view' of the way it had been dealt with.
Judge Major said they first had to deal with the issue of who the Defendant was.
Young Rachel was apparently confused when the Judge asked if OE was a franchise with independent companies trading under their name. Rachel agreed that it was her understanding that it was indeed a franchise.
Judge Major was completely baffled when numerous other company names were mentioned, and she told Rachel that if she was unable to understand the company structure then it was impossible that Carmel as a litigant in person would!
She quizzed Rachel about Optical Express’ connection to DCM Optical Clinics Ltd and 123 Leeds - the latter in liquidation.
She told Rachel that she did not accept that there was no connection between Optical Express, 123 Leeds and DCM Holdings Ltd, and if companies wind up to avoid liability then the Courts need to know about it!
Clever Judge Major made two rulings, (i) Optical Express (DCM Holdings Ltd?) ordered to provide statements of the company structure to Carmel within 2 weeks (due Wednesday) (ii) Carmel given permission to then amend name of Defendant
Carmel said the Judge appeared to think her claim is for medical negligence, warning her to check the time limitation, presumably because this is what the Defendants incorrectly based their argument on, but Carmel was too nervous to correct her!
A second Case Management Conference will be listed in due course, when Carmel will instruct a solicitor to represent her.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1164
- Thanks: 153
Replied by admin on topic Croydon County Court @ 11am, 17 August 2016
Posted 15 Aug 2016 07:53
‘You behave more like an outlier than a zebra in the middle of a pack well away from the lions… like a snail tracking over your pillow… getting oil off the windscreen… pushing the bread layer into the sandwich filling… I don’t want to push you off the dry eye cliff… ‘
Dozens more similes and metaphors like these from Dr Jonathan Carr to his damaged patient Carmel Robertson during her consultation with him in April 2014.
When she gets a rare word in Carmel asks, following her first lasik surgery in March 2012 (regressed after only five months), was it the lasek (re)treatment in 2013 that caused her problems? Without hesitation Jonathan Carr unreservedly replies, ‘Yes!’
He goes on, ‘My late mother in law would say, “Of course - you didn’t have a problem… Jonathan scratched the eye, procedure number two, and you got the problem!"'
Yet another simile, 'When we have scratched the eye we will get out a laser in a polishing mode… the way to think of that is, you know when people are cleaning the lobby in a nice building with that hovering thing? It’s a bit like that with a laser.'
He tells Carmel that her problems are rare, but that for him ‘rare things are common’, because of the numbers of problems OE refer to him to deal with!!
He recommends that she should seek an external opinion outside ‘The Company’ [OE] and he would help arrange that. He recommended three surgeons, two of whom I know OE have sent many of their damaged patients to, and the third, NHS surgeon Bruce Allan, who, said Dr Carr, ‘has three children so he’s a good guy’!!!
The only time he was stuck for words was when Carmel passionately stated that she wished she had NEVER had laser eye surgery!
Oh Carmel, don’t we all!
The recording is far too long for me to transcribe in its entirety, almost forty minutes, but, if Carmel were not out of limitation time to sue for negligence, I believe Jonathan Carr dug himself a hole so deep that he and OE would have been begging to settle out of court!
In March 2016 Carmel issued small claims proceedings under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, 'purchase not as described/not fit for purpose’ (see below).
Claim no: C6QZ001V, the case management hearing is listed for 11am on Wednesday 17 August @ Croydon County Court.
Unfortunately Carmel didn’t ask for my help until 8 August, the same day that Jamie Colman wrote to advise her that Plexus Law had 'been appointed to act on behalf of Optical Express in place of Clinical Services Director, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd.’ (Clinical Services Director is of course Tweedledum aka Stephen Hannan.) Carmel received the hard copy letter on 10 August.
On Friday Plexus Law made an ‘URGENT’ Court application to have the claim struck out (see below).
Also on Friday, Carmel advised Jamie Colman that she’d asked me to represent her and that he was to forward all correspondence to me.
He responded, 'Dear Mrs Robertson, please note that the Defendant does not recognise Ms Rodoy as she is not regulated under the Legal Services Act to provide litigation or advocacy services, or to engage in any restricted activity. Consequently, we will continue to provide to you as the interested party in the litigation all relevant documents regarding the conduct of the claim. It is obviously a matter for you as to whether you make an application to the Court to be permitted to have in court a McKenzie Friend. We will however inform the court that Ms Rodoy is not independent and that she will have a conflict of interest in acting in your best interests.
Yours sincerely
Jamie Colman
Partner
Plexus Law
Peninsular House
30-36 Monument Street
London EC3R 8NB'
I am very much looking forward to Jamie (or barrister?) explaining to the Judge why I am 'not independent’, and what my 'conflict of interest' is that he claims would affect my acting in Carmel’s best interests - will they perhaps claim that they are acting in her best interests?
Sadly, I believe that I am the ONLY person - other than the lawyers representing my clients - who does the utmost to act in the best interests of damaged patients.
Regardless of the outcome, this is more very bad publicity for Optical Express
Dozens more similes and metaphors like these from Dr Jonathan Carr to his damaged patient Carmel Robertson during her consultation with him in April 2014.
When she gets a rare word in Carmel asks, following her first lasik surgery in March 2012 (regressed after only five months), was it the lasek (re)treatment in 2013 that caused her problems? Without hesitation Jonathan Carr unreservedly replies, ‘Yes!’
He goes on, ‘My late mother in law would say, “Of course - you didn’t have a problem… Jonathan scratched the eye, procedure number two, and you got the problem!"'
Yet another simile, 'When we have scratched the eye we will get out a laser in a polishing mode… the way to think of that is, you know when people are cleaning the lobby in a nice building with that hovering thing? It’s a bit like that with a laser.'
He tells Carmel that her problems are rare, but that for him ‘rare things are common’, because of the numbers of problems OE refer to him to deal with!!
He recommends that she should seek an external opinion outside ‘The Company’ [OE] and he would help arrange that. He recommended three surgeons, two of whom I know OE have sent many of their damaged patients to, and the third, NHS surgeon Bruce Allan, who, said Dr Carr, ‘has three children so he’s a good guy’!!!
The only time he was stuck for words was when Carmel passionately stated that she wished she had NEVER had laser eye surgery!
Oh Carmel, don’t we all!
The recording is far too long for me to transcribe in its entirety, almost forty minutes, but, if Carmel were not out of limitation time to sue for negligence, I believe Jonathan Carr dug himself a hole so deep that he and OE would have been begging to settle out of court!
In March 2016 Carmel issued small claims proceedings under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, 'purchase not as described/not fit for purpose’ (see below).
Claim no: C6QZ001V, the case management hearing is listed for 11am on Wednesday 17 August @ Croydon County Court.
Unfortunately Carmel didn’t ask for my help until 8 August, the same day that Jamie Colman wrote to advise her that Plexus Law had 'been appointed to act on behalf of Optical Express in place of Clinical Services Director, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd.’ (Clinical Services Director is of course Tweedledum aka Stephen Hannan.) Carmel received the hard copy letter on 10 August.
On Friday Plexus Law made an ‘URGENT’ Court application to have the claim struck out (see below).
Also on Friday, Carmel advised Jamie Colman that she’d asked me to represent her and that he was to forward all correspondence to me.
He responded, 'Dear Mrs Robertson, please note that the Defendant does not recognise Ms Rodoy as she is not regulated under the Legal Services Act to provide litigation or advocacy services, or to engage in any restricted activity. Consequently, we will continue to provide to you as the interested party in the litigation all relevant documents regarding the conduct of the claim. It is obviously a matter for you as to whether you make an application to the Court to be permitted to have in court a McKenzie Friend. We will however inform the court that Ms Rodoy is not independent and that she will have a conflict of interest in acting in your best interests.
Yours sincerely
Jamie Colman
Partner
Plexus Law
Peninsular House
30-36 Monument Street
London EC3R 8NB'
I am very much looking forward to Jamie (or barrister?) explaining to the Judge why I am 'not independent’, and what my 'conflict of interest' is that he claims would affect my acting in Carmel’s best interests - will they perhaps claim that they are acting in her best interests?
Sadly, I believe that I am the ONLY person - other than the lawyers representing my clients - who does the utmost to act in the best interests of damaged patients.
Regardless of the outcome, this is more very bad publicity for Optical Express
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1164
- Thanks: 153
Replied by admin on topic Ireland
Posted 12 Aug 2016 12:28
I love a good show - and with such an impressive cast list I have no intention of missing this one in Dublin!
Trial date is expected to be set for late February, and I will of course post details when confirmed...
With the OE v Associated Newspapers (Daily Mail) trial on 31 January, listed for 15 days, it looks like I'm fully booked for February.
Trial date is expected to be set for late February, and I will of course post details when confirmed...
With the OE v Associated Newspapers (Daily Mail) trial on 31 January, listed for 15 days, it looks like I'm fully booked for February.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Art55
Replied by Art55 on topic Court Hearing 26 September 2016
Posted 28 Jul 2016 14:47
13 March 2012 I had bilateral lasik eye surgery performed by Manek Patel at Optical Express. Left with worse vision I subsequently had one corrective surgery on my right eye and two on my left.
03.03.14 I went to see Dr Jan Venter who finally said that there was nothing more he could do for me as he would not feel confident performing anymore corrective treatment on my left eye. He said that if he was in my position he would want to be referred to an independent surgeon.
25.04.14 Went to Optical Express Lakeside to be fitted with a pair of glasses.
09.05.14 Went to Optical Express Lakeside to pick up glasses but they were not right so had to be refitted for glasses
24.05.14 Collected glasses from Optical Express Lakeside
30.07.14 Went to see independent surgeon paid by OE.
01.10.15 After 3 more visits to the surgeon he wrote that he would be able to correct my vision, copied to Stephen Hannan @ OE.
20.10.15 Received a telephone call from Martin Gray (OE Clinical Care) to say that they were not prepared to pay for my treatment externally and wanted me to have more tests to decide how they could treat me in-house (if at all).
21.10.15 I replied that I did not want to have any further treatment with Optical Express.
20.11.15 Received a letter in the post saying that they were still were not prepared to pay for treatment externally.
23.11.15 Contacted Sasha Rodoy at OERML. She sent my details to a legal firm who were unable to take on my case due to time limitation (over 3 years).
23.02.16 With Sasha’s help I wrote to OE’s solicitor and advised that I intended to take action via small claims court and received this in return.
24.03.16 I issued a court claim for almost £17,000.
20.04.16 Optometrist Colin Berry called to say that he wanted me to be aware that OE are willing to still correct his eyes with one of their own surgeons. I told him they'd had four years to do that and that Jan Venter had already said that there was no more that OE could do and that was why I was sent to independent surgeon.
21.04.16 Stephen Hannan wrote that I'd sued the wrong defendant, but...
7.07.16 Rebecca O’Hear (legal assistant) called to say that OE would now pay £11,000 for my treatment with independent surgeon., but no travelling expenses or the court fees I have paid out. I replied that I would see them in court.
Sasha has agreed to represent me as Lay Representative and I invite anyone who can to come along and support us.
03.03.14 I went to see Dr Jan Venter who finally said that there was nothing more he could do for me as he would not feel confident performing anymore corrective treatment on my left eye. He said that if he was in my position he would want to be referred to an independent surgeon.
25.04.14 Went to Optical Express Lakeside to be fitted with a pair of glasses.
09.05.14 Went to Optical Express Lakeside to pick up glasses but they were not right so had to be refitted for glasses
24.05.14 Collected glasses from Optical Express Lakeside
30.07.14 Went to see independent surgeon paid by OE.
01.10.15 After 3 more visits to the surgeon he wrote that he would be able to correct my vision, copied to Stephen Hannan @ OE.
20.10.15 Received a telephone call from Martin Gray (OE Clinical Care) to say that they were not prepared to pay for my treatment externally and wanted me to have more tests to decide how they could treat me in-house (if at all).
21.10.15 I replied that I did not want to have any further treatment with Optical Express.
20.11.15 Received a letter in the post saying that they were still were not prepared to pay for treatment externally.
23.11.15 Contacted Sasha Rodoy at OERML. She sent my details to a legal firm who were unable to take on my case due to time limitation (over 3 years).
23.02.16 With Sasha’s help I wrote to OE’s solicitor and advised that I intended to take action via small claims court and received this in return.
24.03.16 I issued a court claim for almost £17,000.
20.04.16 Optometrist Colin Berry called to say that he wanted me to be aware that OE are willing to still correct his eyes with one of their own surgeons. I told him they'd had four years to do that and that Jan Venter had already said that there was no more that OE could do and that was why I was sent to independent surgeon.
21.04.16 Stephen Hannan wrote that I'd sued the wrong defendant, but...
7.07.16 Rebecca O’Hear (legal assistant) called to say that OE would now pay £11,000 for my treatment with independent surgeon., but no travelling expenses or the court fees I have paid out. I replied that I would see them in court.
Sasha has agreed to represent me as Lay Representative and I invite anyone who can to come along and support us.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Tony
Replied by Tony on topic Can I sue
Posted 06 Jun 2016 20:43
Hi all. Just wondering about if anyone knows lawyers who will deal with cases out of the 3 years limitation? I never intended to claim or sue after my surgery. Never thought I could. My goal wad just trying to get better until I came across this site. I had surgery 5 years ago but for 2 or 3 years I had just been going back and forth to the OE optician who just kept giving me eye drops and cream for nighttime. Just felt they were fobbing me off so got fed up and went to NHS who told me I was not suitable for surgery in the first place as I had dry eyes even before surgery.
Any suggestions?
____________________
admin: Unlikely, but possible you're in time for small claims court. If you send email with your phone number I'll be happy to advise info@opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk
Any suggestions?
____________________
admin: Unlikely, but possible you're in time for small claims court. If you send email with your phone number I'll be happy to advise info@opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: admin, Sasha