logo6

Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
I truly hate to beg, but to continue offering a free service, I need your money!
Please contribute here www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...kunena/recent#donate
Read More...

TOPIC: SUING OPTICAL EXPRESS

SASHA RODOY V OPTICAL EXPRESS 28 May 2018 20:11 #11

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 909
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 150
42% raised and only 16 days to go :kiss:
Many of you reading this were happy to freely accept my services when you had nowhere else to turn to, and some of you have since received medical help and/or financial settlements that would not have happened without my work.

Yet the vast majority of the thousands of people I’ve helped in so many ways since 2012 have never once considered thanking me by making a contribution to My Beautiful Eyes Foundation, so that I can continue to offer a free service and help thousands more.

Now I desperately need everyone's help, and if you want to see me succeed then I am begging you to PLEASE PLEASE pledge whatever you can afford!
www.crowdjustice.com/case/legal-action-v-optical-express

Don’t forget that if I don’t reach the target then I lose all that’s been raised so far, and with no money to pay my lawyer Mark Lewis then I will be unable to pursue my case and get the publicity so desperately needed to expose the scandal of the unregulated refractive eye surgery industry!

I would expect this email to make some of you feel ashamed for your lack of support:

Meanwhile, a huge thank you to each and every one of the 48 people who have pledged a total of £2,200 to date!
Attachments:

SASHA RODOY V OPTICAL EXPRESS 23 May 2018 15:30 #12

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 909
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 150


On 27 March I discovered that Optical Express have paid a crisis management team an estimated £1/4 million, over four years, to discredit me and stop all the publicity I have fought so hard for.

I knew nothing about this whatsoever until a little birdie whispered in my ear :kiss:
I immediately sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the PR company, Luther Pendragon, and received their disclosure on 5 May - albeit incomplete, and my complaint now in the hands of the ICO.

I was stunned when I read the parts that Luther Pendragon did disclose!

Every move I've made over the last four years has been scrutinised, and I should be flattered that I do my job so well to merit this kind of expensive and intensive attention...

But enough's enough, and it stops now!

I am pleased to announce that Super lawyer Mark Lewis (google him) has agreed to represent me!

For this to happen I need to raise £5,200 for a barrister to investigate the potential claim and see whether I have a case for libel and/or malicious falsehood that can be pursued “no win no fee”.

Please help to fund my case and pledge a donation via my CrowdJustice campaign site. If I reach my target within 30 days then all funds raised go directly to my lawyer to cover my legal fees. But if the target is not met, then your credit/debit card will not be charged.

It’s all or nothing - and only 22 days to go!

So if you want to see me face David Moulsdale in court, and finally get the massive publicity so desperately needed to highlight the scandal of this unregulated industry and the many thousands damaged by it, then PLEASE PLEASE pledge your donation!

To supportive surgeons and others who'd like to keep their name hidden, when pledging simply click the 'No' option for anonymity.

Please help me win this!

Donate here www.crowdjustice.com/case/legal-action-v-optical-express/

And please share the link on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram
Attachments:

Another 'gagging order' 12 Feb 2018 16:32 #13

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 909
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 150
As soon as I was told about Sarah Roche's trial last Tuesday morning - which had unfortunately slipped under my radar else I’d have been there that day - I contacted her solicitor and told her that I had OE internal emails/documents that I was willing to provide.

So there I was, all prepared and ready to fly to Dublin on Sunday to attend the trial for a few days this week!

Included in a fat file of OE internal docs for Sarah's legal team was the Patient Advisor Flow, a sales manual ultimately responsible for the judgement in Stephanie Holloway’s high profile trial against Optical Express and Dr Joanna McGraw in 2014.

I repeatedly warn solicitors representing OE damaged patients not to be out bluffed when discussing out of court settlements (so many) as OE will NOT risk going into court after the Holloway debacle, because the negative publicity and media cover for a second trial will be massive, with a little help from their ‘friends’ of course!

I was therefore astounded that OE had actually walked through the court doors on this occasion, and could not understand why they had taken the risk.

But knowing too well how they work, I was waiting to hear if Sarah's legal team thought the trial would last the week before I pressed ‘Buy’ for my flight on Sunday.

Meantime, I spoke with journalists and OERML supporters in Ireland...

Unsurprisingly, nonetheless disappointingly, on Thursday morning I received this from Sarah Roche's solicitor, 'We have now reached an out of court confidential settlement.'

Based on Stephanie Holloway’s 2014 court award (£569k + 8% interest), and Sandip Bains' out of court settlement last year (+£500k), I can only take a guess that Sarah Roche’s settlement must have been at least that amount, if not more. (If anyone knows do tell!)

I didn't publish the news immediately as I was trying desperately to get something of note to tell you, but her solicitor is now as gagged as Sarah is, and won't even give me details of what was presented in open court on Tuesday - which is why I should have been there!!

And that’s how Optical Express - and entire industry - remain in business!

My own Optimax 'gagging order' was so badly written and full of holes that it's been impossible to keep me quiet, but I know very well that had it been David Moulsdale I was negotiating with, my settlement agreement would have meant that I wouldn’t even be able to dream the name 'Optical Express’!

Which reminds me, I must write the next instalment of NMMNG soon :kiss:

Note to all: I rely on people providing me with info I might otherwise have missed, so PLEASE don't hesitate to email me if you’ve got news about ANY refractive surgeon/clinic, just in case I don't have it!



'An action by a young woman alleging she is “essentially functionally blind” as a result of undergoing laser eye surgery which was unsuitable for her has been adjourned on consent at the High Court.

The adjournment on Thursday followed day long settlement talks between the sides but no details of the basis for adjournment were provided.

In proceedings which opened before Mr Justice Kevin Cross on Tuesday, Sarah Roche (33) sued Frank Lavery, a consultant ophthalmic surgeon, of Ailesbury Drive, Dublin 4, and DCM Laser Clinic Ltd, trading as Optical Express, with registered offices at Wellington Road, Dublin 4.

A project officer now living in Australia, she was living at Meadow Grove Estate, Blackrock, Cork, when she underwent the surgery after which she attended a number of post-operative reviews in Cork before leaving Ireland in 2008.

Ms Roche said in evidence she wanted the surgery before she went trekking in South America.

It was claimed, for reasons including she had a thin cornea and a prior refractive history and/or a history of progressive myopia, she was not suitable for the wavefront LASIK surgery performed on her by Mr Lavery at the Optical Express clinic in Dublin on May 7th, 2007.

Her counsel Oonagh McCrann SC said Ms Roche should never have been advised to have this particular surgery as a result of which she has been left “essentially functionally blind” except when she can wear complicated contact lenses she can tolerate for a maximum eight hours daily.

Both defendants delivered full defences denying her claims and the case had been expected to last three weeks.

Ms McCrann said Ms Roche, while in Australia, began towards 2012 to notice a deterioration in her eyesight. She was referred to a specialist and diagnosed with Ectasia secondary to Lasik treatment. This was an advanced progressive eye disease, where the cornea gets thinner and bulges.

Having been advised the condition would continue to deteriorate and she required treatment involving collagen cross linking on both eyes, she underwent that and is now in a position where she has vision when she wears a complicated contact lenses system which she can tolerate for about eight hours but otherwise is functionally blind, counsel said.
'
www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/co...on-consent-1.3385240
Attachments:

Blinded on the High Street... 06 Feb 2018 23:04 #14

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 909
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 150
How many more before the governments take action :kiss:


'A young woman has been left "essentially functionally blind" as a result of undergoing laser eye surgery which was unsuitable for her, it has been claimed at the High Court.

Sarah Roche should never have been advised to have the wavefront LASIK surgery she underwent in 2007 and, as a result of it, has been left essentially functionally blind except when she can wear complicated contact lenses she can tolerate for a maximum eight hours daily, her counsel Oonagh McCrann SC said.

Ms Roche claims, for reasons including she had a thin cornea and a prior refractive history and/or a history of progressive myopia, she was not suitable for the LASIK surgery performed on her by Frank Lavery at the Optical Express clinic in Dublin on May 7, 2007.

In proceedings which opened before Mr Justice Kevin Cross on Tuesday, she has sued Mr Lavery, a consultant ophthalmic surgeon, of Ailesbury Drive, Dublin 4, and DCM Laser Clinic Ltd, trading as Optical Express, with registered offices at Wellington Road, Dublin 4.

Both defendants have delivered full defences denying her claims and the case is listed to last three weeks.

Ms Roche, a project officer now living in Australia, was living at Meadow Grove Estate, Blackrock, Cork, when she underwent the surgery in Dublin in May 2007 after which she attended post-operative reviews in Cork before leaving Ireland in 2008.

Among her claims, she alleges the procedure carried out was unsuitable for her, she was not advised of the risks and the necessary scans were either not carried out or, if they were, were not properly analysed.

Ms McCrann said extensive discovery was sought, no records of scans were provided and the defence said they could not find them.

Ms McCrann said the procedure was recommended to her client and she was delighted she was considered suitable for it. While the defence disputed Ms Roche attended all post-operative reviews, she maintained she attended all post operative appointments she was requested to attend, counsel said.

Ms Roche had travelled to Australia in 2008 and towards 2012 began to notice a deterioration in her eyesight, counsel said. She was referred to a specialist and diagnosed with Ectasia secondary to Lasik treatment. This was an advanced progressive eye disease, where the cornea gets thinner and bulges, counsel said.

Having been advised the condition would continue to deteriorate and she required treatment involving collagen cross linking on both eyes, she underwent that treatment which was aimed at halting the progression of Ectasia in both eyes.

Ms Roche is now in a position where she has vision when she wears a complicated contact lenses system which she can tolerate for about eight hours but she otherwise is functionally blind, counsel said.

In evidence, Ms Roche said she wanted the laser treatment before going trekking in South America. She said she never signed a consent form for the 25 minute procedure and did not remember any explanations of the procedure or the risks involved.

She got both eyes done on the day. “It was quick and easy. I was really happy with it."

Around Halloween that year she noticed a black dot on her eye and later had to have operations on her eyes while living in Australia, she said. She now has to wear contact lenses for vision and without them cannot see very well.
'

www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/wom...-hears-36575638.html
Attachments:

I sued OE & Mr Riaz Asaria 26 Jan 2018 09:08 #15

  • Claire Foley
  • Claire Foley's Avatar
Hi there

Thanks to Sasha Rodoy, who was my guide and inspiration throughout the process, I sued and won!

My botched lens exchange surgery was performed by Mr Riaz Hassan Asaria in Dec 2013 at Optical Express Westfield store in White City shopping mall.

In 2015 I instructed a legal firm and started proceedings against Optical Express and the surgeon Mr Riaz Asaria.

I registered with the MHRA - www.mhra.gov.uk/yellowcard - and reported the damage to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. in 2015. You will need to let them know which model of implant you had. Mine was Model : M+MS30 Lens implant. You need to do this immediately.

Then instruct a lawyer. Don't give up your fight. These eye shops selling botched surgery are on the back foot now so go for it!

Good luck.
Claire
_____________
admin: Mr Riaz Asaria no longer works for Optical Express, he's a consultant ophthalmologist in private clinics at London hospitals Saint John and Saint Elizabeth, the Royal Free, and the Wellington.

In 2017 Mr Asaria performed cataract surgery on a friend of mine at the Wellington (via BUPA). And guess what, my friend had problems!

Mr Riaz Asaria's name has been cropping up a lot recently, mentioned to me by local people with probems after cataract surgery (amazing how many there are!), and I realised why when I attended Whittington NHS Hospital a few months ago. There was his name on a consulting room door!

What a scary industry this is :kiss:

Beginning Quest For A Refund 18 Dec 2017 05:48 #16

  • Ms B
  • Ms B's Avatar

Mrs R wrote: Can anyone help me?

I'm beginning the quest for a refund - don't all laugh at once!

I presented within 15 months of my surgery with poor vision - I definitely do not have 20/20 vision - OE are now telling me that any aftercare or any further treatment will now cost me more - I don't want anymore treatment at all (especially not for £1000 an eye!!).
[/b]


Mrs R I'm in the same situation with getting my rightful refund as i don't have 20:20 vision but also have dry eyes and painful corneal neuralgia as a result of the surgery :((( :( , did you manage to get yours refund now? And how?
_______________________
admin: For advice send email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. :kiss:

Croydon County Court @ 11am, 17 August 2016 15 Nov 2017 20:31 #17

  • Dawn
  • Dawn's Avatar
Interesting read! I worked for plexus for around 3 years, didn’t know they acted for OE!

Hitachi Finance agreements 01 Nov 2017 20:15 #18

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 909
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 150
If you are suing Optical Express, or have been denied aftercare, depending on the date of your surgery you may have been told that they’re not responsible, that the company who provided your treatment was Optical Express Southern Ltd (OESL), or 123 Leeds Ltd, dissolved and removed from Companies House register in December 2015.

Nice try boys :kiss:

Because unfortunately for Optical Express, as this letter from Chris Mellor shows, Hitachi Personal Finance don’t agree.



If any solicitors or litigants in person would like further info do contact me (via email) as I have other documents - and recordings of two phone calls with Hitachi representatives - confirming the same.

I also have copies of Hitachi Capital agreements that show ‘DCM’ as the supplier - acronym for CEO David Charles Moulsdale.

Meanwhile, presumably due to the nature of his job, which mostly entails telling a lot of lies to a lot of people, Tweedledum aka Stephen Hannan seems to be somewhat befuddled, because he recently signed a legal document claiming that OESL was in fact owned by Leeds 123 Ltd.

But hey, what's in a name!?
Attachments:

Suing OE 27 Oct 2017 21:16 #19

  • Stephen Maguire
  • Stephen Maguire's Avatar
Me and my partner both had eye surgery lens implants. My partner's went drastically wrong and when she went back we had to pay a further £550 for them to laser one eye, then she was told that her other eye needed treatment and they're asking for a further £550 - this is on top of the first payment of around £3500. We were told that we would get lifetime after care what a Joke that was .
All this company wants is Money our Money! There must be something that can be done.
I'm trying to find out how to take legal action against Optical Express and if anyone can help put me in touch with a decent legal firm that can help us please do. We're based in Nottingham.
Thanks
__________________
admin: If you send your phone number I will call you :kiss: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

SUE THE SURGEON? 23 May 2017 13:11 #20

  • Alan
  • Alan's Avatar
Can anyone recommend a legal firm in Nottingham area with successful outcome please
____________________
admin: No advertising permitted :kiss:
For info send your phone number to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

OERML & My Beautiful Eyes Foundation rely on your support to expose the horrors of this unregulated industry.

Your help is very much appreciated!

Amount:
© 2018 Optical Express Ruined My Life. We guarantee your anonymity unless you state otherwise. Please read our Privacy Policy and the Terms and Conditions of use of our website for full details.