Optimax Reviews ‘Optimax Reviews’ Forum | Main Page Optimax & Ultralase Reviews Legal victory for damaged Optimax patient!

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    • #832 Reply
      Avatar photoOR-Admin

      With regards to a litigation case between a damaged patient (Gavin) and Optimax we have some great news…

      The following report, written by Sasha Rodoy (Gavin’s patient advocate):


      As I expected, Gavin’s case was settled this morning – and with no NDA included in the agreement he is free to speak out 😎

      Whilst he doesn’t want the amount he accepted publicised, Gavin is fine with me telling you that the last offer his lawyers refused on his behalf yesterday evening was £250k.

      But although his legal team served him well, encouraging him to hold out when being offered insultingly low amounts (a few firms I have previously named and shamed would’ve pushed him to accept less than a third of what he’s ended up with), no amount of ££ can ever fix Gavin’s eyes, or stop the painful and depressing results of #refractiveeyesurgery that he now suffers, including extreme #dryeyes and #MGD (meibomian gland dysfunction).

      The pictured image and following details are taken from the legal pleadings (statement of claim) submitted to the court, and please note that I have edited some of the legal terminology in square brackets to make it less confusing!

      ‘She [Optimax optometrist Malissa McWilliams] advised the Pursuer [Gavin] that he had “slightly dry eyes” but that he was still within the parameters for having both #LASIK and #LASEK surgery.’

      ‘At the time [Gavin] presented before the said employee [Malissa McWilliams] on 22 December 2012 (and latterly on 23 March 2013, as hereinafter condescended upon) [Gavin] was suffering from blepharitis of the lid margins and an abnormal tear film. That he was suffering from said condition was or ought to have been ascertained upon any competent examination of [Gavin’s] eyes, especially in light of [Gavin] having answered “yes” to a question involving said condition in his initial (computer) questionnaire. Said employee [Malissa McWilliams] of “Optimax” did not explain to [Gavin] that he had blepharitis of the lid margins. She did not explain to [him] that he had an abnormal tear film. She did not advise [Gavin] that if he had laser eye surgery, in view of the fact that [he] had blepharitis of the lid margins and an abnormal tear film, he was at an increased risk of having significant and prolonged symptoms of dry eyes, compared to the average patient undergoing laser eye surgery.’

      ‘On two occasions during the consultation, [Gavin] informed said employee [Malissa McWilliams] that his eyes were very sensitive to certain factors. On both occasions said employee [Malissa McWilliams] said that that didn’t matter.’

      ‘She did not explain the meaning of the condition “dry eyes”. She did not explain that it was a recognised medical condition. She did not explain the symptoms of dry eyes.’

      ‘During one of said telephone calls an employee (name unknown to the Pursuer) of “Optimax” offered [Gavin] a 50% discount on the price of the treatment.’-

      It’s now 2022, and the same lack of fully informed consent and sales tactics from this sickening corrupt industry continues…


Viewing 0 reply threads
Reply To: Legal victory for damaged Optimax patient!
Your information: