This case is based on a real scenario, with some facts altered to preserve confidentiality.

A 30-year-old with myopia went to an optician to discuss laser vision surgery. She was seen by an optometrist, examined and advised treatment with LASIK. Her surgery was arranged for four weeks’ time. She was asked to sign a consent form on the day of surgery by her ophthalmologist, and a LASEK procedure was undertaken in both eyes. After three weeks, she developed hazy vision and continued myopia.

Eighteen months later, the patient had a second procedure by another ophthalmologist to remove corneal haze. There was no improvement in her vision. She suffered from irritable dry eyes and still had to wear glasses, as she could not tolerate contact lenses. She experienced ongoing dazzling with bright lights, and was unable to drive at night. She was no longer able to continue her current job in the jewellery trade because of her poor vision. The patient made a claim against the first ophthalmologist.

Although the expert witness in the case did not criticise the surgical performance of the ophthalmologist, the case was settled for a large sum. This is because:

Consent was taken less than 30 minutes before the procedure

• There was no documentation of a discussion of risks and benefits of all the available options, including not proceeding with surgery, that were relevant to this patient
• No discussion took place indicating possible complications and their implications on future employment
• The ophthalmologist did not adequately check that the patient understood what procedure she was having.