defective contact lens

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post Mon, Feb 8 2010 4:24 AM by Vadgue.1026. 3 replies.
  • Fri, Feb 5 2010 9:48 AM

    • ckb2pga2
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Fri, Feb 5 2010
    • CA
    • Posts 1

    defective contact lens

    My wife has had a reaction to a contact lens she used and damged her vision. She was out of work for several weeks and incurred over $5000 in medical bills. She has over 45 pages of documentation from 3 doctors and eye specialists saying that it was the contact lens that damaged her vision. She contacted a lawyer in CA> where we live and was told she had no case with out the actual lens she used. 6 months later she has been contacted by the manufacture asking for any proof. She faxed 47 pages of dr. bills and statements from the drs. She heard back immediately from them looking to settle claim. She does have the rest on the contact lens that were not used. Do you think a vist to another attorney is do or should she just settle and be done with it?

  • Fri, Feb 5 2010 10:04 AM In reply to

    • carol3
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Aug 10 1999
    • CT
    • Posts 3,129

    Re: defective contact lens

    If she has serious/permanent damage to her vision as a result and you have 3 doctors to indicate that, I would consult another attorney.

    You need to act promptly as the statutes  apply.

    Unless she can prove actual serious injury, it might not be worthwhile for an attorney to take the case due to the high cost of obtaining expert testimony in such maters. 

  • Fri, Feb 5 2010 10:22 AM In reply to

    Re: defective contact lens

    While there's apparently no doubt that the contact lenses were the problem, the big question is this: Was it due to a product defect or was it due to an allergic reaction with no product defect?

    You can google "allergic reaction to contact lenses" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

    If it was an allergic reaction to the contact lenses with no product defect then she has no case and the manufacturer is likely going to offer a modest amount of go-away money without any admission of fault and hiring a lawyer is not likely to change that.

    If there actually was a product defect the next question is whether there was a temporary condition that she recovered from or a permanent condition.

    A temporary condition caused by a product defect with complete recovery is not worth much money. She might be able to get her meds, lost earnings, and something for pain and suffering (not much if she was only out of work for a couple of weeks).

    Last but not least, permanent damage due to a product defect could be worth a lot of money and would be worth hiring an attorney.

    However, without actual proof of a product defect (hey, here's the lens, it's defective) she might as well just see what she can negotiate with the manufacturer.

    Although talking to a few more attorneys first couldn't hurt.



    • The right of the people 
    • to keep and bear arms,
    • shall not be infringed.
Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community