SUE THE SURGEON?
admin: Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org with/for details as advertising is not permitted on this site.
Reply to suing
All surgeons are independently insured and any solicitor failing to go after the operating surgeon in tandem with OE needs to explain this omission to you.
Merryl Roberts wrote: I have been trying to claim compensation from optical express for the last two years, but have now received a letter saying that due to them going into administration I will not be able to claim. Has anyone else had the same and is it really the end of my claim? I have had 3 years of hell since my surgery and feel that compensation is due.
In my opinion OE won't be around by the end of 2014 but in the interim if their surgeons are called to account then perhaps others will think twice before risking their reputation and possibly their future career prospects.
Reply to Mr
If you too have suffered RLE problems at OE, regardless of whether or not you are taking legal action, it would be appreciated if you would contact OERML.
This includes anyone who has undergone an explant at OE or elsewhere.
If you signed a 'gagging order' you can ask a relative to provide details, as any info discussed PRE signing is not confidential or covered by a subsequent agreement.
Pls email: email@example.com
NB: If Mr Wright can wins his case in the Small Claims Court it will open floodgates for so many of you with the same issue yet unable to take legal action for negligence.
Reply to admin
Mr C's 84 year old mother underwent RLE surgery the same week, both ops performed by Mr Alex George @ Bridgewater Hospital in Manchester following consultations @ Optical Express' store in Bristol's Cabot Centre.
Mr C's mother was given a refund on condition she signed a 'gagging order'. However Mr C wanted an explant and refused to risk his eyesight to one of OE's surgeons a second time, insisting it should be done by a reputable surgeon of his choice, cost approximately £11,000.
NB: Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE) means that the patient's own natural lens is removed and replaced with an intraocular lens (IOL ). An explant necessitates a new IOL being replaced in the eye, unquestionably more complicated than the original RLE surgery.
Not constrained by his mother's gagging order, this gave Mr C an advantage in any ensuing legal case against OE: the same surgeon performed the same surgery on two members of the same family and both suffered the same problems!
However, legal action can take years and time is of the essence for an explant, as a delay can make the invasive procedure more complicated and reduce the chances of success.
With my support Mr C embarked on his battle for OE to pay for his surgery with a surgeon he trusted.
2 April 2013: David Mungall sent my client a "Without prejudice" letter agreeing to pay 50% of the explant costs, saying, "In the unusual circumstances of your case...".
(With the same mantra repeated in every "Without prejudice" offers so many of my clients receive - be it a £200 pair of glasses or £11,000 surgery, when do the circumstances stop being "unusual"?)
As Mr C was not in position to pay the other 50% this was not an option, so we fought on, reminding OE that Mr C was not 'gagged' and could therefore advertise both his own problems and his mother's on the internet.
21 June 2013: David Mungall's tag team partner, Stephen Hannan, sent a second "Without prejudice" letter, again chanting "In the unusual circumstances...", but this time agreeing to pay the full cost of treatment + twelve months aftercare for my client, with the surgeon of his choice.
Mr C discussed this with me and I recommended he spoke with a solicitor before signing the agreement - which of course included the famous 'gagging order', because once he signed there was no legal recourse.
December 2013: Mr C underwent RLE explant surgery paid by OE and is now unable to publicise details of his problems with Optical Express. However, I know the details, am not gagged, and am free to speak out.
Btw, a 'gagging order' restricts a person speaking out in public, "Unless required to do so by law".
Coincidentally, whilst helping Mr C I was contacted by Mr Wright who'd suffered the same problems, with the same RLE surgery, performed by the same surgeon, Mr Alex George, this time at the Optical Express Bristol 'store'.
Like Mr C, Mr Wright needs an explant and he asked Optical Express to pay for the same surgeon who treated Mr C. OE refused and said their surgeon Prof Jan Venter could do it just as well (see Craig's Story).
Of course Mr Wright turned down their generous offer and in December paid his own costs for a consultation with the same independent surgeon who performed Mr C's explant.
As he was leaving the clinic in London my client received a call from Optical Express offering him a £2,990 refund for the cost of his original surgery. He immediately called me when I advised him to wait until he received the offer in writing before refusing.
A few days later a letter from David Mungall arrived with the ubiquitous phrase, "In the unusual circumstances..." and of course the requisite 'gagging order'!
Mr Wright is 64 years old, he is not a wealthy man, he cannot afford the additional £8,000 his surgery will cost (plus travel and accommodation), and has already funded two London consultations himself.
Two years ago Mr Wright's wife died of cancer and now he too has cancer. (See David's Story)
Last week I wrote to David Moulsdale advising him that Mr Wright intends to pursue this via the Small Claims Court where I will represent him.
NB: This is not an option for people who are seeking compensation, which must be dealt with by a solicitor.
However, I believe the Small Claims Court may be an effective low cost option for those simply seeking a refund or retreatment costs, and I will be happy to help anyone wishing to pursue this option.
Reply to admin
However, if you are already in litigation please contact firstname.lastname@example.org for information which may save your solicitor some time.
Reply to admin
- Posts: 27
- Thank you received: 0
- Merryl Roberts
Reply to Merryl Roberts
- Posts: 36
- Thank you received: 3