Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Suit Stemming From Eye Perforation

Justin Hardin obtained a complete defense verdict in a medical-malpractice jury trial in St. Francois County. The case involved allegations of permanent eye damage after a retrobulbar block on a 69-year-old man by his ophthalmologist client. The ophthalmologist planned to administer the additional anesthetic, known as a retrobulbar block, prior to cataract surgery to prevent eye movement during the procedure. The plaintiff demonstrated extreme photophobia during a pre-operative exam, and the doctor was concerned he would not be able to tolerate the procedure with IV sedation alone. Retrobulbar block involves the injection of lidocaine behind the eye. Before the lidocaine is injected, the patient is sedated. After the plaintiff was sedated, the doctor attempted to inject the lidocaine. At the moment of insertion of the needle, the plaintiff’s head jerked, causing a perforation of the eyeball unbeknownst to the doctor. The doctor administered the lidocaine and then began to prepare for the surgery. Once ready, he noticed blood in the eye and did not proceed with the surgery. Instead, he examined the eye and determined the plaintiff suffered a detached retina. He immediately made arrangements for the plaintiff to be seen by a retina specialist, and he underwent surgery the following day. Plaintiff’s detached retina was repaired and while he did not lose vision in his eye, he claimed permanent blurry vision as a result of the injury. Plaintiff presented evidence that the standard of care required the physician to anticipate the head movement. Plaintiff further contended that the Plaintiff was the only reported case of perforation of the eyeball during retrobulbar block due to head movement, arguing that surgeons should be able to avoid this complication under such circumstances. The defense’s expert testified that perforation of the globe during a retrobulbar block is a known and accepted risk of the procedure and that head movement increases that risk. The defense’s expert further testified that while physicians are trained to anticipate bad things happening in surgery, anticipation is not the same as prevention and that the surgeon met the standard of care. Plaintiff’s counsel asked for $200,000 in closing argument. The jury deliberated for 25 minutes and returned a defense verdict. Mr. Hardin was assisted by Nick Espinosa.