140 BEDFORD ROAD

                                                                                                                            PLEASANTVILLE, NEW YORK 10570

                                                                                                                                               (914) 769-8700


             TODD J. KROUNER*                                                                                                                 OF COUNSEL                

                        ———                                                                                                                                       ———

        DOMINIQUE N. FERRERA                                                                                               EVELYN OCHMAN ROSEN

         STACEY M. RANCOURT                                                                                                                    ———


     *ADMITTED IN NY AND NJ                                                                                                                                                                    


December 16, 2008




Johnson Devadas and Saramma Devadas v. Kevin Niksarli, M.D.,

Manhattan LASIK Center, PLLC, and NewSight Laser Center, PLLC

New York County, Supreme Court of the State of New York

Index # 107637/07


            PROTECTIVE ORDER GRANTED IN LASIK MALPRACTICE ACTION. In a LASIK malpractice case scheduled for trial in New York, in January 2009, the trial judge, the Honorable Joan B. Carey, Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, granted plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order, shielding the identify of plaintiffs’ LASIK malpractice expert.  In a decision dated December 8, 2008, Judge Carey held:

When viewed collectively, the evidence submitted by plaintiffs demonstrates a concrete risk that the expert ophthalmologist would be subjected to annoyance, expense, embarrassment, and disadvantage, if identified before trial.  The culture of the LASIK industry, as described in plaintiffs’ various submissions, coupled with the fact that plaintiffs’ expert has already “personally born the brunt of antagonistic comments from colleagues for representing patients in LASIK malpractice claims,” leads the Court to find that a protective order is warranted.


            Judge Carey was persuaded by plaintiffs’ submission which included an article in Ophthalmology News, reference to internet websites, and a recent slander action brought against a LASIK expert in Florida.

            As a separate matter, plaintiffs’ recently filed a cross motion to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages as a result of Dr. Kevin Niksarli’s alteration of the treating records.  Plaintiffs’ forensic expert, Albert Lyter, III, Ph.D., found that:

(1)        the last line on Dr. Niksarli’s treating note for Johnson Devadas, namely “R/B/A/ of LASIK Sx explained to pt including –> ”, which treating note was purportedly created on March 25, 2004, was created at a time different than the rest of the notations on that page (Exhibit A-1);


                        (2)        the last line in his treating note for Saramma Devadas, namely, “R/B/A of LASIK expl. to pt. incl. but not limited –>”, which treating note was purportedly created on March 24, 2004, was created at a time different than the rest of the notations on that page (Exhibit B-1);


                        (3)        the addendum to Saramma Devadas’s note (Exhibit B-1) is missing, and by letter dated September 10, 2008, defendants’ counsel state “there isn’t a handwritten addendum after the page indicating ‘R/B/A of LASIK expl. To pt incl. but not limited to’. The chart you were given is the complete chart in Dr. Niksarli’s possession”;


                        (4)        the addendum to Mr. Devadas’s treating note (Exhibit A-1) was artificially aged in a manner that is not consistent with the normal storage of medical records (Exhibit A-2); and


            That motion is still pending before the court.

            A copy of Judge Joan B. Carey’s Order is available at www.krounerlaw.com.  A full set of plaintiffs’ motion papers are available at www.krounerlaw.com.  For further information, please contact Todd J. Krouner, Esq. at tkrouner@krounerlaw.com or at (914) 238-5800. 

Were You Threatened With A Cease & Desist Letter? PDF Print E-mail

Any action YOU take as a result of being threatened with a lawsuit can be used against you in a court of law:

The judge ruled in the defamation action brought against me that because I changed my website back to its original state when threatened with a lawsuit, along with correspondence between attorneys, that my actions constituted an agreement/contract. The Pennsylvania Superior Court's opinion.

I sent the Nevyases attorney a letter of intent right after receiving the cease and desist request, and abided by the letter I sent.

Based on my experience, if you are threatened with lawsuit, I would suggest you speak to an attorney prior to considering any changes.

Doctors Don't Like To Take a Stand Against Each Other! PDF Print E-mail

What will you do if the unexpected happens?

You end up with a complication that cannot be "fixed" and realized that you were not properly informed of the risks, or you think you have suffered malpractice.....

It's a tactic well-known, repeated countless times, that your surgeon will probably tell you "Just give it another six months" or "The cornea heals very slowly and you just need to be patient".  Sometimes, that's enough to keep you pacified until after the statute of limitations (during which you can file a lawsuit) runs out.  Once you realize that you are not getting better, it's too late to sue.

Even if you know there's been malpractice, where are you going to find a doctor who will take a stand against his colleagues and to some degree, the refractive surgery industry?  Remember, they don't like to admit that this surgery has disabled many, many patients.  They prefer to remain in a state of denial and pretend that LASIK never harms anyone because it's an elective and UNNECESSARY surgery.  The worse LASIK and other procedures begin to look, the less money they make.  Plain and simple, this is strictly about MONEY.  Refractive surgery is completely unregulated and it's become a free-for-all for surgeons who can take a one-day class and call themselves a LASIK surgeon.  Then as they gain experience, they double it by calling each patient "two cases" because they have two eyes!

What you can expect to hear:

"I don't see any malpractice here."

"Your doctor did nothing wrong."

"That's not exactly what I said," (when your attorney calls the doctor to verify what he told you).

"There is new technology coming that can fix this, so there are no damages here."

"He is an excellent surgeon and I know he fully informs his patients."

Chances are that you will not find an expert witness near your home.  Finding one is the most difficult part of litigation, but once you have a reputable expert who says that malpractice occurred, you've got a case!

Public Citizen Appeals on Behalf of Gripe Web Site Operator to Protect Internet Free Speech PDF Print E-mail

 Court Ruling Endangers First Amendment Rights of Consumers Who Use the Internet to Complain About Companies

For Immediate Release:      Contact: Paul Levy (202) 588-1000

June 27, 2006        Robert Yule (202) 588-7703

      WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Pennsylvania resident left legally blind after lasik eye surgery should be allowed to identify his doctors on a Web site warning the public about the risks of the surgery, Public Citizen said in an appeal submitted today on his behalf in a Pennsylvania state court.

      The appeal, which was filed in Pennsylvania Superior Court in Philadelphia, seeks to reverse an injunction against Dominic Morgan forbidding him from criticizing doctors Herbert Nevyas or Anita Nevyas-Wallace on any Internet Web site.

Can you imagine a truthful LASIK seminar? PDF Print E-mail
This was sent to me by a LASIK casualty. She asked me to post this stating, "This is what the doctors should tell you". I can't find a more appropriate place on this website to place it!
News Related... PDF Print E-mail

LASIK Lawsuits - Patients and their lawyers take aim.

Read more

Lawsuits Against Patients Backfire on Litigious Surgeons

Read more

Study identifies risk factors for refractive surgery malpractice lawsuits and claims

Read more

Refractive Surgical Volume Boosts Legal Risk

Read more

'Many people have had Lasik treatment, but there's little information about how many suffer complications or damage to their eye as a result.'

Read more - Subscription Required

Jury awards man $3 million

MALPRACTICE: The man had sued Northern Refractive Surgery Center for
the care and treatment he received.



A St. Louis County jury determined that Northern Refractive Surgery Center was negligent in its care and treatment of a Duluth man and awarded him more than $3 million in damages.

Informed Consent PDF Print E-mail

Informed Consent almost always offers you absolutely NO PROTECTION!  This is to protect the doctors from lawsuits.  Most of the risks may be spelled out, and even though the doctor(s) may tell you "there shouldn't be anything to worry about", there's ALWAYS SOMETHING TO WORRY ABOUT!  You never know what COULD happen, and once you sign the informed consent, that's it!

Letter printed in the J Cataract Refract Surg, Vol. 26, October 2000


The editorial by a journal editor was overdue. I consider it particularly appropriate that simultaneous bilateral laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is subjected to serious questioning. One can only marvel at the naive trust by patients in modern medicine and in their surgeons and the similarly naive convictions of surgeons that simultaneous bilateral LASIK is what the patients need.

It is not purely a safety issue; simultaneous bilateral surgery violates the principles of informed consent. Nobody can deny that experience with the first eye will render the patient better informed for consenting to the procedure being performed on the second eye. Simultaneous bilateral surgery deprives the patient of the possibility of gaining a better refracative outcome in the second eye and of judging the visual benefit of the surgery by comparing the operated eye +/- residual spectacle or contact lens correction with the corrected unoperated eye. Finally, simultaneous bilateral LASIK preempts a possible decision by the patient to choose another type of refractive surgery for his/her second eye, such as photorefractive keratectomy, intracorneal ring segments, or a phakic intraocular lens, or to postpone surgery on the second eye until better procedures become available if the result of LASIK on the first eye proves unsatisfactory. He/she may not have to wait very long.

Klaus D. Teichmann, MD

Statute of Limitations PDF Print E-mail
Most states have a 2-year statute from the time of incident to file a lawsuit. As laws vary by state, any lawyer in your state should be able to tell you the timeframe you have.
Vision Simulations for Forensic Use PDF Print E-mail

We prepare simulations for use in the courtroom. Please call for free consultation.

For more information
INTACS - The next wave of lawsuits? PDF Print E-mail

Intacs and other IOL’s, recently approved by the FDA are not without its problems either. Doctors who have vested interests in these companies have made millions from LASIK.

More on INTACS...

FDA Warning

FDA Minutes

More on STAAR #1

More on STAAR #2

Medical Malpractice? PDF Print E-mail

If you've been damaged, and are seeking legal recourse for those damages, you may be quite surprised, and overwhelmed...

Each case is different. From simple to complex (as was mine), and depending on the courts, facts may necessarily mean nothing. They are easily dismissable depending on the judge's understanding, and you can still be left with no case.

To give you a better understanding, my case as an example:

In 2000 I filed a med mal lawsuit. I believed at the time because so much of my case was dismissed, that the courts didn't want to handle this case because it was so complex. It was also my understanding arbitration was the more feasible route to go.

I lost the arbitration! Again, I believe because of the complexity of the case, and the lack of understanding of facts. Facts the courts, and the arbitrator didn't want to understand.

Websites focus on LASIK lawsuits PDF Print E-mail

So who's been sued?

Go to just about every LASIK website and read the testimonials from people who are "happy and content" with their "great LASIK experience". What you won't find or hear about are the procedures that went wrong, or the number of lawsuits:

Major LASIK chains LVI, TLC (and doctors associated with). There are MANY names to add (listed below are a few), Your best bet would be to check your with local or federal courts, or websites such as:


Disclaimer: I do not purport the doctors named to be unsavory, unscrupulous, or otherwise. It is not my intention to slander, defame, cause libel, or otherwise. Doctors are people...PEOPLE ARE NOT PERFECT.

Silence is Golden...for the LASIK Doctors? PDF Print E-mail

As Angry Patients Vent Online, Doctors Sue to Silence Them



Doctors have long accepted that their patients share opinions about the care they have received, knowing that satisfied patients will refer others while those not so happy with their bedside manner might encourage prospective customers to seek treatment elsewhere. But when William Boothe, an ophthalmologist in Texas, saw that one disgruntled former patient was posting his complaints on the Internet, he launched an aggressive response. He sued for libel and other claims, and earlier this year a state judge ordered the material removed from the Web.  (See documents below)

READ MORE - Subscription required
When doctors sue to silence, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?!? PDF Print E-mail


Brent Hanson, sued by Dr. William Boothe for his LA$IKQUACK.COM website:

BOOTHE v. HANSON - PDF Documents

My case, which can now be posted:

And not just the courts... PDF Print E-mail
"When I wrote a letter to Ocular Surgery News about the unethical arrangement between my surgeon and my optometrist, I received a death threat from someone who didn't want my letter published. I retracted it out of fear that my family could be harmed, which is exactly what that person wanted."  Sandy Kellar - Lasikdisaster.com
Refractive Claims Up, Payouts Remain Low PDF Print E-mail

OMIC Publication Archives - Refractive Claims Up, Payouts Remain Low

Read more

If you are a lawyer who is interested in handling LASIK litigation cases, and would like to be listed here, please contact me at:



Who specializes in LASIK litigation? 

Law Offices of Todd J. Krouner

93 N. Greeley Avenue Suite 100
Chappaqua, New York 10514
tel. 914-769-8700

Temporary Contact Info:
140 Bedford Road
Pleasantville , New York 10570
Tel. No. (914) 769-8700

Mr. Krouner's client was awarded the highest settlement in a LASIK lawsuit to date against Dr. Mark Speaker.
Website: www.krounerlaw.com

Law Offices of Robert A. D'Iorio & Associates, PLLC

Robert A. D'Iorio
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC  20015 
Phone: (202) 243-0581
Fax: (202) 243-0582
Email: rdiorio@dioriofirm.com
Website: www.dioriofirm.com  or www.dc-lawyer.com
In or around Philly? PDF Print E-mail

In or around Philly?

Philadelphia's Civil Docket Access system can be found:


Enter last name of doctor and starting date (at least 5-10 years prior) to search for. (example: enter morgan under last name, and 01-jan-2000, and any cases with the name morgan will show from jan 1, 2000. first names (dom) will narrow the search.)