[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
February 1988

Malpractice Litigation and Cataract Surgery-Reply

Author Affiliations

Westfield, NJ

Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(2):166. doi:10.1001/archopht.1988.01060130176008

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

In Reply.  —The aggressiveness with which insurance companies defend malpractice claims varies greatly, not only between states but within states. One New Jersey insurance company has a policy of defending all claims to discourage frivolous suits against their insureds. This practice has resulted in some extraordinarily large losses that might have been significantly reduced by a settlement. Cost containment is of paramount importance in limiting insurance premium increases, and there are obviously several opinions as to the most propitious manner in which to achieve this goal.Dr Insler's sentiments notwithstanding, there are situations in which there is increased risk of accidental perforation of the globe by a retrobulbar needle. The presence of a staphyloma is just such a possibility. It is excessively rigid and unforgiving to insist that every accidental perforation of the globe is a negligent act.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×