Plaintiff was visiting our client when she fell down an interior stairway. Plaintiff contended that the stairway that had been replaced five years earlier by an unlicensed contractor, caused her accident because the contractor negligently failed to comply with provisions of the code that require handrails to have at least 1 ½ inches of finger space. The plaintiff asserted that because part of the molding ran up against the handrail, there was an absence of space to grab for several inches. The plaintiff maintained that as a result, she was caused to fall. Plaintiff put on the stand the expert engineer Nicholas Belizzi, PE. We argued that the stairs were safe and that there had been no problems with the stairs or handrail in the 5 years since being installed. We also contended that the plaintiff had regularly visited the premises, and had been on the stairs many times and argued that the condition of handrail would not have caused a fall. Upon submission to the jury, it returned a defense verdict on behalf of our client.
The Plaintiff had undergone cataract surgery performed by our client. One day after the surgery, as well as a week after surgery, plaintiff was evaluated by our client with very poor visual acuity (ability to only “count fingers” at 2 feet). On the third post-operative visit, our client determined that the intra-ocular lens (the artificial lens that he inserted as a replacement for the human lens which has developed a cataract) had dislocated. As a result, the plaintiff had to undergo a series of surgeries to correct this situation, which allegedly caused him to have serious problems with depth perception, glare and blurry vision.
The claim of malpractice essentially was that the intra-ocular lens had dislocated right after the surgery, which was demonstrated by the extremely poor visual acuity one the first and second visits and that our client had failed to diagnose it in a timely fashion. The plaintiff’s experts testified that had our client dilated the eye and seen him more frequently, he would have diagnosed the dislocation earlier, which would have caused the corrective surgery to be done earlier, avoiding the necessity of additional surgeries and prevented the development of his problems with depth perception, blurriness and glare.
We were able to defeat the claim by presenting evidence and expert testimony which established that despite the initial poor visual acuity at the time of the first two post-operative visits, our client had correctly ascertained that the intra-ocular lens was in the correct location through both his own examination and the use of a device called the auto-refractor. We also proved that as soon as there was actual evidence that the lens had dislocated, our client made the correct referral, and that despite the claims of impaired vision, the plaintiff had made a good recovery after the corrective surgery, with vision which enabled him to fully participate in his daily activities.