Adult Ambylopia, parental negligence?

[ramparts]

I have recently had a query from a friend who seems to have a combination of anisometropia and strabismus despite it being detected in early childhood. He was referred to an optimetrist and treated with the patch and eye drops. At this point his parent (single) stopped going back and never followed up the condition, hence my friend being almost blind in his left eye. I was wondering is there a legal case for neglect on the parents part or has anybody come across any similar cases and to what outcome?

Thanks in advance

Ramparts

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KHE]

I don't really get this. Your friend is an adult? Is he hoping to sue his mother for money? I'm confused.

 

[optsuker]

Is your friend obese?
Maybe he could sue Mom for taking him to McDonald's & having Pepsi in the refrigerator.

Is he stupid?
Could be a case of not helping enough with homework.

 

[ramparts]

Is your friend obese?
Maybe he could sue Mom for taking him to McDonald's & having Pepsi in the refrigerator.

Is he stupid?
Could be a case of not helping enough with homework.

Optsucker your attempt at comedy is funnier than your actual jokes, however blindness and obesity are real world issues, so why dont you run along and buy yourself a new book, id recommend either a joke book or a coloring in one.

 

[ramparts]

I don't really get this. Your friend is an adult? Is he hoping to sue his mother for money? I'm confused.

Yes he is an adult and is considering suing his mother, this might seem harsh but she has not been.. let's just say a good role model in his life. Now there are plenty of cases where the optometryst has been sued, but very little on the internet about Parental negligence. I was just wondering on peoples thoughts about this?

 

[optsuker]

Optsucker your attempt at comedy is funnier than your actual jokes, however blindness and obesity are real world issues, so why dont you run along and buy yourself a new book, id recommend either a joke book or a coloring in one.

You're right, obesity & blindness ARE serious issues.
However, the thought of getting financial damages by suing your Mom for being a bad parent is laughable.

As a practicing optometrist, it's all too common that parents don't follow our advice in the treatment of their kids for ocular disorders. Same with immunizations, nutrition, discipline, morals,......
We're also all mandatory reporters, so we're required by law to report any hint of abuse. This just doesn't fall into that category.

Adult kids looking to sue their parents over how they were raised is ludicrous, & hints at how low are society has gone.
Although it would create some interesting attorney commercials during Sponge Bob & Jerry Springer!

Fess up! Your "friend" is you.

 

[ramparts]

You're right, obesity & blindness ARE serious issues.
However, the thought of getting financial damages by suing your Mom for being a bad parent is laughable.

As a practicing optometrist, it's all too common that parents don't follow our advice in the treatment of their kids for ocular disorders. Same with immunizations, nutrition, discipline, morals,......
We're also all mandatory reporters, so we're required by law to report any hint of abuse. This just doesn't fall into that category.

Adult kids looking to sue their parents over how they were raised is ludicrous, & hints at how low are society has gone.
Although it would create some interesting attorney commercials during Sponge Bob & Jerry Springer!

Fess up! Your "friend" is you.

Lol my friend is me, good one , Columbo. (get it?, didnt think so)Just one more thing, I never mentioned suing for bad parenting, that would be ludicrous (like your jokes) we are talking about responsibility, are you aware of the many cases in which the optometrist has been sued for malpractice, (successfully at times) for cases very similar to this? So given that the success rate for curing Amblyopia (there are differing statistics) is very high if treated properly and as you well know a toddler is unable to make these decisions. Is it not a parents moral and legal obligation to follow the treatment through and have regular checks to see if it has returned?
And by the way it speaks volumes that you know which commercials are on between Sponge Bob & Jerry Springer!

 

[KHE]

If you could sue parents for negligence, probably 75% of all people would be suing their parents. I'm not a lawyer obviously but if we consider just the medical aspect of it, in general to sue for malpractice there is a statute of limitations. It is likely that that has long since passed.

Also, your friend would have to somehow prove damages. In what way are they monetarily damaged? And if they are, to the tune of how many dollars?

It seems highly unlikely your friend will have any luck with this.

 

[ramparts]

If you could sue parents for negligence, probably 75% of all people would be suing their parents. I'm not a lawyer obviously but if we consider just the medical aspect of it, in general to sue for malpractice there is a statute of limitations. It is likely that that has long since passed.

Also, your friend would have to somehow prove damages. In what way are they monetarily damaged? And if they are, to the tune of how many dollars?

It seems highly unlikely your friend will have any luck with this.

Well damages are obvious , blindness in one eye cant be measured in financial terms. Spacial awareness, which is why some sufferers are unable to drive certain types of vehicles. And from a job perspective, for example a police officer, customs official and limitless other jobs require that you must pass an eye test. And I want to get away from the monetary gain issue or angle, I was more interested in peoples informed views. Here is an interesting link about parental responsibility.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=...hMgMd3vkjKhQfHhIQ&sig2=rRHIKAzRzWlmh-b3Ti-nFQ

 

[Blondiechick919]

No way you could sue for negligence. Amblyopia has to be treated before the age of 7. Even if it's accompanied by a strab (which is an obvious sign you need to get them checked out) some parents think it's no big deal and will work itself out in childhood. By the I time it hasn't, it's too late.

If the doctor is attempting to patch and atropine an adult in an attempt to improve an amblyopic eye, tell your fiend to save his time and money. It won't work and as hard a pill as it is to swallow, the vision loss in that eye is likely permanent. It's neurological now.

 

[optsuker]

Lol my friend is me, good one , Columbo. (get it?, didnt think so)

How old are you? How about Richard Castle?

.....I never mentioned suing for bad parenting,............

2 of your 1st 3 posts mentioned it

...are you aware of the many cases in which the optometrist has been sued for malpractice, (successfully at times) for cases very similar to this?...

And by the way it speaks volumes that you know which commercials are on between Sponge Bob & Jerry Springer

I'm guessing you watch a lot more daytime TV than me.

 

[KHE]

Well damages are obvious , blindness in one eye cant be measured in financial terms. Spacial awareness, which is why some sufferers are unable to drive certain types of vehicles. And from a job perspective, for example a police officer, customs official and limitless other jobs require that you must pass an eye test. And I want to get away from the monetary gain issue or angle, I was more interested in peoples informed views. Here is an interesting link about parental responsibility.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEAQFjAE&url=http://www.omic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Amblyopia-Risk-Reduction.pdf&ei=3_-ZU-_mJaPG7AajmIHgCg&usg=AFQjCNF58iObE5RTvhMgMd3vkjKhQfHhIQ&sig2=rRHIKAzRzWlmh-b3Ti-nFQ

But in order to sue for damages, you have to measure it in financial terms. That's how it works.

You've posted a link from OMIC. But if I blind you in one eye and you're a schoolteacher, you don't get the same amount of money as you would if you're a pilot for Delta Airlines and your career is ruined. That's just the way our system works.

Even if your friend could sue, which I don't think he could, your friend would also have to get passed the statute of limitations which if he's over the age of 25 has almost surely passed.

 

[ramparts]

How old are you? How about Richard Castle?
2 of your 1st 3 posts mentioned it

I'm guessing you watch a lot more daytime TV than me.

The suing part was about negligence, asking someone how old they are as a retort is really original and going by your immaturity im guessing you guess quite alot.

 

[ramparts]

Ok the original discussion was over a few glasses of wine and I agree a legal claim is unlikely, however it has perked my interest in the responsibility side of things. I think 3% of western children have some form of ambylopia and there should be better regulations put in place, like in the article in the link i provided parents should take responsibility in writing therefore giving the child a better chance and also at the same time protecting the optometrist.

And why on my first venture into this forum did i get landed by the village idiot??

 

[optsuker]

...asking someone how old they are as a retort is really original and going by your immaturity im guessing you guess quite alot.

I only ask because you referenced a TV show that's been off the air for 40 years & you list in your profile that you're a Pre-Optometry student.

I'm confident letting the forum readers decide who's the idiot (your word, not mine. This site discourages personal insults).

 

[ramparts]

I only ask because you referenced a TV show that's been off the air for 40 years & you list in your profile that you're a Pre-Optometry student.

I'm confident letting the forum readers decide who's the idiot (your word, not mine. This site discourages personal insults).

I listed Columbo because of his eye condition, like I said I didn't think you'd get the link....

 

[opto2be]

Shouldn't this question be posted on a legal forum? I would hate to think that your friend could sue his mom just because she lacked the medical understanding to realize the long-term consequences.

 

[ramparts]

Shouldn't this question be posted on a legal forum? I would hate to think that your friend could sue his mom just because she lacked the medical understanding to realize the long-term consequences.

Well this is an interesting point, I'm sure most parents lack the medical understanding to realize the long term consequences, so this would then suggest that the optometrist is culpable.

 

[KHE]

Well this is an interesting point, I'm sure most parents lack the medical understanding to realize the long term consequences, so this would then suggest that the optometrist is culpable.

Well that would suggest that the optometrist didn't recommend the correct treatment. It sounds like they did but the parent didn't bring the child or comply with the treatment. That would make the optometrist not liable. Also, the statute of limitations in most states is (I believe) 2 years after the child reaches their 21st birthday. So unless your friend is under 23, he couldn't sue the doctor.

 

[opto2be]

Probably neither party is culpable. The optometrist may have done his/her duty by explaining the condition, and the mother may not have fully grasped the seriousness. Then there's also the issue of people believing follow-ups aren't really necessary, and that the doctor just wants a reason to charge them for more visits.

 

[iiii]

I have to admit I read the original thread & thought this sounds like a guy looking to sue his Mom because his life didn't turn out the way he wanted & is looking for evidence for his "friend."

I think Peter "Columbo" Falk had retinoblastoma & had 1 eye enucleated as a child. Quite a bit different than amblyopia.

 

[ramparts]

Maybe the description in the thread heading is misleading, so could we forget about the legal aspect for a second, of course I could have posted in a legal forum but I guess I'm just more interested in the overall consensus as I find it quite shocking in this day and age in the developed world that an easily treatable condition could be left to the point where some one could be blinded for life, albeit in one eye, especially due to the fact it was diagnosed and caught early, I think absolving some one of any blame is a cop out.

 

[iiii]

If your goal wasn't to talk about liability, then it was misleading. Yet you keep coming back with terms like blame, negligence, culpable, etc.. so it seems like that really is your focus.

BTW, the vast majority of amblyopia cases are nowhere near the definition of blindness. None cause the patient to see noting out of one eye, most are mild cases of not being 20/20 with best correction & fall into the nuisance category more than life-altering. There are some that result in less than 20/200 with best correction (legal definition).

 

[ramparts]

If your goal wasn't to talk about liability, then it was misleading. Yet you keep coming back with terms like blame, negligence, culpable, etc.. so it seems like that really is your focus.

BTW, the vast majority of amblyopia cases are nowhere near the definition of blindness. None cause the patient to see noting out of one eye, most are mild cases of not being 20/20 with best correction & fall into the nuisance category more than life-altering. There are some that result in less than 20/200 with best correction (legal definition).

Ok, i asked to stay away from legal but you are the one who is googling (legal definition). Some people just don't get it we are talking about a case where the person is almost totally blind in one eye so lets not google statistics and stick to the case in hand, ill make it very simple, in your opinion who is to blame? God?

 

[iiii]

Ok, i asked to stay away from legal but you are the one who is googling (legal definition). Some people just don't get it we are talking about a case where the person is almost totally blind in one eye so lets not google statistics and stick to the case in hand, ill make it very simple, in your opinion who is to blame? God?

Every optometrist & optometry student on this site knows off the top of their head that 20/200 is the legal standard (no google required).
Your "almost totally blind" doesn't mean anything to us. What's his best acuity with correction?
Realize that we have patients come in nearly every day saying, "I'm almost blind" only to reveal they see pretty good & just need stronger lenses.
So when we hear that, we assume you're exaggerating without the acuity numbers to back it up.

To answer your question:
God made you amblyopic.
It's your parents' responsibility to get your eyes checked and to follow the doctor's instructions.
It's your eye doctor's responsibility to identify the problem & prescribe treatment/corrective lenses.
It's your responsibility (even as a kid), that if an adult gives you glasses & says "wear these all the time," to wear them.
It's your responsibility (as an adult) to get over the fact that some of us have sh*tty parents, to adapt, and get on with our lives.

 

[ramparts]

Every optometrist & optometry student on this site knows off the top of their head that 20/200 is the legal standard (no google required).
Your "almost totally blind" doesn't mean anything to us. What's his best acuity with correction?
Realize that we have patients come in nearly every day saying, "I'm almost blind" only to reveal they see pretty good & just need stronger lenses.
So when we hear that, we assume you're exaggerating without the acuity numbers to back it up.

To answer your question:
God made you amblyopic.
It's your parents' responsibility to get your eyes checked and to follow the doctor's instructions.
It's your eye doctor's responsibility to identify the problem & prescribe treatment/corrective lenses.
It's your responsibility (even as a kid), that if an adult gives you glasses & says "wear these all the time," to wear them.
It's your responsibility (as an adult) to get over the fact that some of us have sh*tty parents, to adapt, and get on with our lives.

Pretty good, (eventually) The only point I would disagree with you on is that a 5 year old child has a responsibility for anything.

The V.A. in this case is 20/1250 so lenses are obselete and make no difference whatsoever, but then again he could be exaggerating.

It seems you believe I am in fact talking about myself and suing my own mother, an impossibility.

 

[Blondiechick919]

What size letter is 20/1250? Everywhere I've been uses CF and HM after 20/400 isn't there.

 

[Rain Clouds]

Well, technically a 20/400 letter viewed at 6.4 feet would be 20/1250 equivalent. Or just a letter 3.125x larger than a 20/400 letter...