Faulty Oculentis Lenses
- admin
-
Offline
Topic Author
- Posts: 1161
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic #Oculentis offer €1.75m
Posted 23 Jun 2020 16:41
In my opinion Oculentis should leave the refractive industry stage, because their lenses are responsible for leaving thousands of people with heartbreaking problems, many with lifelong and irreparable damage to their eyes 
I could write pages about this matter, but as today is the closing date for 130 people to tell their lawyers that they agree to accept the €1.75m offer from Oculentis I am rushing this.
(I may possibly post more details here at a later date, including my email conversations with the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) - in my opinion as corrupt as their US counterpart, Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Unless 95% agree, Oculentis will withdraw their insulting offer, but the two unscrupulous law firms representing these clients have given them no choice!
Because anyone who dares risk refusing to accept what equates to a paltry €5-6k (less than the original cost of surgery) has been threatened by theIr lawyers that they will drop them and seek costs!
Since posting details on my sites a few days ago I have been contacted by a number of people asking for advice, including one person who underwent bilateral lens replacement surgery in 2014, but presented with problems only a few months ago, now advised that the lenses are on the Oculentis recall list and both need explanting.
This contradicts some reports claiming that deterioration of visual acuity will typically manifest within 36 months, and this should be of concern to anyone fitted with the Oculentis lenses.
Who will pay for future surgery if not the NHS?
In 2019 I was told about the Oculentis 'Patient Pathway’ (OPP), administered by Topcon GB Ltd (UK distributor for Oculentis) and advised that Topcon had recently imposed a payment limit of £3,500 per eye to surgeons performing explants of faulty Oculentis lenses.
Yesterday I contacted Oculentis CEO Ben Wanders, asking for details of how #MBEF clients can access this if not currently in litigation. He has failed to respond.
Today I emailed #Topcon MD, Andrew Yorke, asking how this will work for many of the 130 people who do, or may in the future, need explants - because once that €1.75m agreement is signed, unless included in its terms, they have no guarantee that this will be paid for.
And I also asked, given that Optegra Eye Hospital chain may be sold, or out of business by the end of 2020,* could he explain how this eventuality would affect their patients who have been assured that Optegra will provide explants that might be needed in the future.
* www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...discuss/9253-optegra
What I don't understand is, given that Oculentis themselves recalled these lenses, why they now argue the claims brought by other (more scrupulous) firms representing clients fitted with these lenses.
This screenshot refers to OE's £21.5m legal claim v Associated Newspapers Ltd (re Daily Mail).
You will note that there is no mention of the damage caused to so many people who were fitted with Oculentis lenses, including retinal detachments and other serious issues - of more concern to me than the damage caused to the industry by publicising facts and truth!
And nor were the reports 'inaccurate and misleading', which is why Optical Express 'dropped' their claim, accepting a £150k Part 36 offer, and ordered by the court to pay the Defendant’s costs - which I recall were over £1m!
I could write pages about this matter, but as today is the closing date for 130 people to tell their lawyers that they agree to accept the €1.75m offer from Oculentis I am rushing this.
(I may possibly post more details here at a later date, including my email conversations with the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) - in my opinion as corrupt as their US counterpart, Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Unless 95% agree, Oculentis will withdraw their insulting offer, but the two unscrupulous law firms representing these clients have given them no choice!
Because anyone who dares risk refusing to accept what equates to a paltry €5-6k (less than the original cost of surgery) has been threatened by theIr lawyers that they will drop them and seek costs!
Since posting details on my sites a few days ago I have been contacted by a number of people asking for advice, including one person who underwent bilateral lens replacement surgery in 2014, but presented with problems only a few months ago, now advised that the lenses are on the Oculentis recall list and both need explanting.
This contradicts some reports claiming that deterioration of visual acuity will typically manifest within 36 months, and this should be of concern to anyone fitted with the Oculentis lenses.
Who will pay for future surgery if not the NHS?
In 2019 I was told about the Oculentis 'Patient Pathway’ (OPP), administered by Topcon GB Ltd (UK distributor for Oculentis) and advised that Topcon had recently imposed a payment limit of £3,500 per eye to surgeons performing explants of faulty Oculentis lenses.
Yesterday I contacted Oculentis CEO Ben Wanders, asking for details of how #MBEF clients can access this if not currently in litigation. He has failed to respond.
Today I emailed #Topcon MD, Andrew Yorke, asking how this will work for many of the 130 people who do, or may in the future, need explants - because once that €1.75m agreement is signed, unless included in its terms, they have no guarantee that this will be paid for.
And I also asked, given that Optegra Eye Hospital chain may be sold, or out of business by the end of 2020,* could he explain how this eventuality would affect their patients who have been assured that Optegra will provide explants that might be needed in the future.
* www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...discuss/9253-optegra
What I don't understand is, given that Oculentis themselves recalled these lenses, why they now argue the claims brought by other (more scrupulous) firms representing clients fitted with these lenses.
This screenshot refers to OE's £21.5m legal claim v Associated Newspapers Ltd (re Daily Mail).
You will note that there is no mention of the damage caused to so many people who were fitted with Oculentis lenses, including retinal detachments and other serious issues - of more concern to me than the damage caused to the industry by publicising facts and truth!
And nor were the reports 'inaccurate and misleading', which is why Optical Express 'dropped' their claim, accepting a £150k Part 36 offer, and ordered by the court to pay the Defendant’s costs - which I recall were over £1m!
- admin
-
Offline
Topic Author
- Posts: 1161
- Thank you received: 153
Oculentis Faulty lenses was created by admin
Posted 18 Jun 2020 19:12
It's estimated that approximately 800 people were fitted with faulty Oculentis Intraocular lenses, recalled by the manufacturer in 2014 and 2017
Posted previously, but for those who missed it, the faulty lenses:
'LENTIS HydroSmart foldable Intraocular lenses (IOL), with CE mark CE 1275 packaged in glass vials, production date until 31/12/2011. All IOL models, starting with L-. LU- or LS- and with serial numbers starting with 20000.’
Expiry date: January 2017 to May 2020.*
The majority of patients were fitted with the recalled lenses at Optical Express and Optegra Eye Hospital, and also at Moorfields Private Eye Hospital.
When this was publicised, a number of law firms jumped on the opportunity to sign up as many claimants as they could, some with aggressive advertising and promises of huge settlements.
Today, while most of the claimants are still in litigation, some have paid a lot of money to have the lenses explanted privately, some at NHS hosptals, others still needing surgery.
After an anonymous source provided me with a number of ‘Strictly confidential’ documents, detailing a recent offer from Oculentis, to 130 victims included in what would be termed a ‘class action’ in America, I decided to do some further research.
In 2019 one law firm settled claims with Optegra clinics using contract law, alleging that the lenses were not of a satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982.
I understand that Optegra settled these cases without too much fuss, albeit without an admission of liability, and clients apparently received approximately £13-14,000 each.
Different law firms have taken varying approaches to claims, going after the credit card company, using the Consumer Protection Act, and employing other strategies.
Two test cases are going to trial next year.
Brought to my attention yesterday, I discovered there were similar problems in 2000 and 2004, with calcification of Hydroview (Bausch and Lomb) and Aqua-Sense IOLs. (Google if interested)
I don't have any details about Aqua-Sense, but was told that Bausch and Lomb behaved in a reasonable manner: they held their hands up and accepted responsibility.
Unlike Oculentis, who are pleading poverty, determined to pay out as little as possible so they can stay in business and get back to making lots of money!
In a 'class action’ the settlement amount is divided equally between all claimants - after greedy lawyers have taken the lion’s share - which means that anyone who has serious problems and needs further operations will get the same amount as another person whose eyes are relatively OK.
And it should be noted that many of the claimants involved in this ‘class action’ were initially MBEF clients, and none that I know of were told they were part of a group action when they signed up with the law firms!
In fact, I have a recording of one lawyer assuring me that Oculentis claimants would be managed individually, NOT as a 'class action'.
And then we go back to the cost to the NHS…
Is it fair that a Dutch company should be allowed to continue trading for vast profit, leaving UK tax payers to fund operations to fix the problems caused by these lenses?
Answers on a postcard (email) - to your MP please!
To be continued...
*If you think you have these lenses and want to talk to a lawyer, for details of two firms I strongly recommend you avoid, email: info@mybeautifuleyes.co.uk
Posted previously, but for those who missed it, the faulty lenses:
'LENTIS HydroSmart foldable Intraocular lenses (IOL), with CE mark CE 1275 packaged in glass vials, production date until 31/12/2011. All IOL models, starting with L-. LU- or LS- and with serial numbers starting with 20000.’
Expiry date: January 2017 to May 2020.*
The majority of patients were fitted with the recalled lenses at Optical Express and Optegra Eye Hospital, and also at Moorfields Private Eye Hospital.
When this was publicised, a number of law firms jumped on the opportunity to sign up as many claimants as they could, some with aggressive advertising and promises of huge settlements.
Today, while most of the claimants are still in litigation, some have paid a lot of money to have the lenses explanted privately, some at NHS hosptals, others still needing surgery.
After an anonymous source provided me with a number of ‘Strictly confidential’ documents, detailing a recent offer from Oculentis, to 130 victims included in what would be termed a ‘class action’ in America, I decided to do some further research.
In 2019 one law firm settled claims with Optegra clinics using contract law, alleging that the lenses were not of a satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982.
I understand that Optegra settled these cases without too much fuss, albeit without an admission of liability, and clients apparently received approximately £13-14,000 each.
Different law firms have taken varying approaches to claims, going after the credit card company, using the Consumer Protection Act, and employing other strategies.
Two test cases are going to trial next year.
Brought to my attention yesterday, I discovered there were similar problems in 2000 and 2004, with calcification of Hydroview (Bausch and Lomb) and Aqua-Sense IOLs. (Google if interested)
I don't have any details about Aqua-Sense, but was told that Bausch and Lomb behaved in a reasonable manner: they held their hands up and accepted responsibility.
Unlike Oculentis, who are pleading poverty, determined to pay out as little as possible so they can stay in business and get back to making lots of money!
In a 'class action’ the settlement amount is divided equally between all claimants - after greedy lawyers have taken the lion’s share - which means that anyone who has serious problems and needs further operations will get the same amount as another person whose eyes are relatively OK.
And it should be noted that many of the claimants involved in this ‘class action’ were initially MBEF clients, and none that I know of were told they were part of a group action when they signed up with the law firms!
In fact, I have a recording of one lawyer assuring me that Oculentis claimants would be managed individually, NOT as a 'class action'.
And then we go back to the cost to the NHS…
Is it fair that a Dutch company should be allowed to continue trading for vast profit, leaving UK tax payers to fund operations to fix the problems caused by these lenses?
Answers on a postcard (email) - to your MP please!
To be continued...
*If you think you have these lenses and want to talk to a lawyer, for details of two firms I strongly recommend you avoid, email: info@mybeautifuleyes.co.uk
Moderators: admin