The NY Law Journal reports that a jury awarded a former investment banker at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein $4.5 million over a bad LASIK surgery. The plaintiff claimed that the super-busy LASIK surgeon, who performed ten other surgeries that day, failed to notice that he had an eye condition that made LASIK dangerous for him. He now has blurred vision in his left eye and cannot continue his job as an i-banker (incredulity added by blogger).
Irony #1: I wonder if this i-banker would recommend tightening up suitability rules for brokers now.
Irony #2: A few weeks ago, readers were up in arms because the Wisconsin Supreme Court uncapped a $750k noneconomic damages award for a boy who will live life without the use of his arm. (Economic damages were $403k). One of the reasons why jurors grant noneconomic damages is to remedy shortcomings in how economic damages are calculated. In determining economic damages, jurors have to decide how much is necessary for future medical expenses and how much income will be foregone by the injury. For an i-banker with blurry vision who makes seven figures and says that he will have to give up his job (and go work for his dad's financial services firm), this number can be quite large. For a newborn with no income, this number is, well, zero.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d8351d109953ef
Links to weblogs that reference I-Banker wins Med Mal Suit based on Suitability:
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
