Settlement Value of Loss of Vision in One Eye

63-year-old woman underwent glaucoma surgery on her eye and suffered post-surgical complications that eventually left her with permanent loss of vision in her left eye. She alleged that the doctor was negligent in failing to properly evaluate her prior to surgery, and failing to provide timely and proper post-surgical monitoring. Jury in Macomb County Michigan awarded $1.5 million for pain & suffering.

A 28-year-old passenger was involved in a single-vehicle collision. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a subdural hematoma, a frontal lobe contusion, facial fractures, jaw fractures, rib fractures, a pneumothorax, an acetabulum fracture, a right foot fracture, bilateral shoulder injuries, and a spleen laceration. The man underwent an open reduction internal fixation procedure and a facial reconstruction. His jaw was wired shut for several months. The man also underwent a colectomy. He was left with memory loss and cognitive impairments. The man was now completely blind in his left eye and partially blind in his right. He underwent in-patient rehabilitative therapy for eight months. The man returned to work. However, he experienced significant pain on the job. The man alleged negligence against his driver. He claimed he operated the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The defense disputed liability. They argued that the man knowingly rode with an intoxicated driver. The jury found the man 25 percent liable and the at-fault driver 75 percent liable. They awarded $20,636,313.   

An 87-year-old woman was admitted to a nursing home. She developed scalp sores. The nursing home staff used medicated shampoo to treat the condition. The woman’s scalp sores appeared to improve. Eight months into her stay, the shampoo made contact with her right eye. The woman was brought to the hospital. She was diagnosed with subconjunctival hemorrhage and edema of her right eye. The woman developed permanent right eye blindness. The woman died the following year from unrelated causes. Her family alleged negligence against the nursing home. They claimed it failed to provide appropriate care and protect the woman’s eyes. The family received a $2,447,500 award.

A minor passenger was involved in a highway collision. She suffered a moderate traumatic brain injury, impaired vision in one eye, and multiple fractures. The girl developed post-traumatic stress disorder. Her parents allege negligence against the at-fault driver. This case settled for $4,725,000.

A minor passenger was involved in a highway collision. She suffered a moderate traumatic brain injury, impaired vision in one eye, and multiple fractures. The girl developed post-traumatic stress disorder. Her parents allege negligence against the at-fault driver. This plaintiff received an eys injury settlement amount of $4,725,000.

An employee of a beverage distribution company suffered an injury to his left eye after glass bottle shards fell out of the box he carried. His doctor assigned him with 85% impairment to his left eye and restricted him from operating heavy equipment and hazardous machinery. He also suffered chronic headaches and depression. The case settled for $100,000 payout, far less, I think, than what the settlement value should have been based on these facts.

A man in his early 50s suffered a detached retina after a rear-end collision. The morning after the collision, he noticed floaters in his right eye. He ignored them, as he previously experienced floaters. Over the next few weeks, his vision deteriorated significantly. He saw an ophthalmologist who diagnosed him with a retinal detachment and tear. The ophthalmologist instructed him to lie, face down, as much as possible. His vision improved to 20/30, however, his vision before the accident was 20/20. He now experiences more difficulty looking at a computer screen.. The jury awarded him $500,000.  This is the opposite of the last case. This would seem to be high retinal detachement settlement just from going from 20/20 to 20/30. 

A woman in her early 50s suffers sphenoid wing meningioma behind the orbital canal. She gets surgery.  A known complication of the repair surgery is a crushing of the optic nerve that causes blindness.  After the surgery, she sees a neurologist for pain management. She sues the neurologist arguing that he failed to do a CT scan despite complaints of headaches and facial pain.  These are signs that there is a concern with her optical nerve. The neurologist argues he is just treating her for pain.  The neurologist also says he told her to see a neurosurgeon. But there is no notation in the file and the woman vehemently denies that he told her to see another doctor.  The defense lawyers clearly believed that the jury would not believe the neurologist. The doctor settles the case for $925,000, $75,000 less than his malpractice policy limit.

A man underwent cataract surgery. During the procedure, the ophthalmologist injected Gentamicin into his right eye. The following day, the man discovered he was now completely blind in that eye after taking the bandage off. He alleged that the ophthalmologist’s negligence caused this. The man and his wife argued that he should have topically applied Gentamicin to his eye’s surface rather than injecting it. The medical practice denied liability. It argued that the ophthalmologist was an independent contractor.  The jury disagreed. They found that the ophthalmologist was an agent of the practice. The couple received a $13,653,245 jury payout.   

A construction worker suffers a severe penetrating injury to his right eye.  As a result, he lost his vision.  The plaintiff claims his injury results from an employee pulling his leg. An employee of defendant Caylor Construction pulled his leg, which caused the man to make an involuntary movement. The plaintiff contended that the employee’s unexpected physical contact caused the injury. The employee denied touching the plaintiff and contended he was negligent in failing to wear eye protection while on the job site. A jury determined the plaintiff was 10% at fault, the plaintiff’s employer was 10% at-fault (workers’ comp), and the defendants were 80% at fault.

Plaintiff, having been diagnosed with glaucoma years earlier, sought treatment and monitoring of his glaucoma from Defendant, as he advertised himself as a glaucoma specialist.  I guess he was just a self-proclaimed expert. After receiving poor treatment for five years, Plaintiff had to undergo a left eye trabeculectomy (filtration surgery) leaving him with loss of sight in that one eye.  Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligently failing to monitor properly and care for his glaucoma.  The case settled out of court for $250,000 in economic damages and $4,500,000 in noneconomic damages.

Plaintiff, a 16-year-old girl, was visiting her boyfriend when another person in the home discharged a pellet gun, striking Plaintiff in the face.  Because of the location of the pellet, it could not be removed, causing Plaintiff to experience several weeks of headaches and permanent residual impairment of her vision.  This is awful anyway, but I think these cases are a thousand times worse when we are talking about a 16-year-old with her whole life ahead of her.  The plaintiff’s eye injury lawyer did something you don’t often see.  They filed and won a motion for summary judgment.  This means the defendant is found responsible as a matter of law.  So the case proceeds on damages only.  This tells me it was a slam dunk case.  The plaintiff’s expert opined that because of the location of the pellet, it could not be safely removed and that any type of future trauma sustained could cause a shift in the pellet’s position.  This case reached an out-of-court settlement before the jury rendered a verdict.

Plaintiff, an undocumented immigrant, was working at a renovation when a nail ricocheted backward, piercing his left eye, causing permanent damage.  The plaintiff sustained a rupture of the globe of his left eye and endured several procedures and surgeries.  The plaintiff sued his employer and the premises’ owner of the renovation site.  The plaintiff’s employer was dismissed, and the matter proceeded to trial against the premises’ owner.  The plaintiff claimed he had requested protective eyewear but was instructed to work without eyewear. The plaintiff’s suit contends that the work site failed to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the project’s workers. The plaintiff sought recovery of past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings, and damages for past and future pain and suffering.  The plaintiff’s wife sought recovery of damages for loss of consortium.  After a two-week trial, and $2,939,000 verdict, the parties negotiated a post-trial settlement and the Defendant’s insurer agreed to a $2.65 million settlement.  The amount was broken down as $45,000 for past and future medical costs, $345,000 for past and future lost earnings capability, $2,500,000 for past and future pain and suffering, and $49,000 for past and future costs of medication.

Plaintiff, 59 years old, treated with Defendant doctor for diabetic retinopathy for two years. Defendant determined that Plaintiff’s condition had progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy.  While Plaintiff conceded that her left eye vision could not have been saved, she argued that Defendant failed to treat her right over for over a year, allowing her vision to go from good to blind.  The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice suit claiming negligence and failure to timely treat her condition.  The defendant denied all allegations and contended that his treatment was safe, appropriate, and conservative.  He further claimed that Plaintiff’s heart condition prevented further treatment.  He asserted that her left eye’s vision was stabilized, but she lost sight in her right eye because of a sudden and unexpected retinal detachment.  A Baltimore County jury, which usually gives doctors the benefit of the doubt, obviously saw it differently.