• Sasha Rodoy
  • Sasha Rodoy's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Thank you received: 1

Replied by Sasha Rodoy on topic Legal action

Posted 23 Mar 2024 17:16 #1
A member of the MBEF private Facebook group recently asked me to publish this email 👀

When people damaged by the unregulated refractive surgery industry initially contact me for help or advice, they often ask if there's any point in trying to take legal action against the company/surgeon responsible, as they signed T&Cs/consent documents.

The answer is ‘yes’, dependant on each individual's circumstances - and VERY important to note, with medical negligence cases you have 3 years from date of knowledge (not from date of surgery) to issue proceedings.*

I am personally aware of many 100s of claims that have been successfully settled, always out of court, frequently with a 'gagging order', hence why you rarely see anyone posting publicly about the details; and please note it's not only Optical Express and Optimax Eye Surgery Specialists | Ultralase Eye Clinics Ltd (the largest UK providers therefore the highest percentage of damaged customers), most other providers have their fair share of victims and legal claims.

And while the documents you signed are worthless if you were not fully informed (I've yet to speak to a damaged patient who was - me included!), litigation is VERY expensive. However, there are a number of firms who will assess the likelihood of success to see if a case qualifies for a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA aka 'no win no fee’).

But PLEASE PLEASE be careful of the countless online websites advertising 'Medical negligence solicitor - 100% No Win No Fee’, the majority ‘ambulance chasers’, who have little or no experience dealing with this corrupt industry.**

(Also avoid firms referring to Stephanie Holloway’s landmark trial in 2014 as if they were the ones responsible - the firm that did represent her definitely to be avoided, as previous posts have explained!)

And if your home insurance includes legal cover, be aware that these companies have a panel of solicitors, picked in rotation so you’ll get the next one on the list, regardless of their expertise. They are usually paid by the insurer even if they drop your case a year down the line, so be warned!

If you do decide to contact a firm you find online, before agreeing to sign with them, be sure to ask the following questions:
•How many refractive surgery clients have they represented?
•How many of these were damaged by the same surgeon/provider that damaged you?
•How many have been successful?

Important to remember that the ONLY real concern this industry has is ££, damaged customers nothing more than collateral damage - so do what you can to hit them where it hurts!

*There can be exceptions to the 3 years time bar, but only a solicitor can advise on that.
**For further info/advice contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Last Edit:23 Mar 2024 17:19 by Sasha Rodoy
  • Sasha Rodoy
  • Sasha Rodoy's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Thank you received: 1

Replied by Sasha Rodoy on topic Cited as witness

Posted 06 Oct 2023 13:27 #2
This mouth watering invitation dropped through my door a few days ago 👀

An opportunity to catch up with MBEF members and clients in Scotland, I would love to say ‘see you in court’, but unfortunately I guarantee there is zero chance that this will happen!

Optical Express have wasted much time and money (that they can ill afford) arguing this case (and dozens more), because they will finally make an acceptable offer to settle out of court, as they have done countless times since Stephanie Holloway’s landmark victory in 2014.

As with Optimax (re Dr Ayoubi), none of these unregulated corrupt companies will risk going to trial, because, win or lose, the guaranteed press attention would cost them far more, in both reputation and loss of future sales.

And they know who’d be sitting in the public gallery if they did (sharing 🍿with friends in Tshirts), even if not cited as a witness 😉
by Sasha Rodoy
  • S

Replied by S on topic LEGAL CLAIMS

Posted 04 Oct 2022 13:08 #3

Can anyone advise if they have been able to win a legal claim against OE for Corneal Ectasia?

I had laser eye surgery 12 years ago with OE and have recently noticed my rapid loss of sight in one eye. I have been advised this is Corneal Ectasia and I need collagen crosslinking to stop it getting worse. I believe there is a cut off in some cases of trying to pursue legal action after 3 years.

OE have sent me letters saying this can do the crosslinking as long as I sign off all negligence against them, it is a really heavy legal letter from OE.

We all sign the consent form before we have the surgery done but nobody at OE did more than give me a bit of paper and ask me to sign, I was potentially also not the best candidate to have the procedure in the first place but that would need to be proven.

Has anyone successfully won against OE? If so, did it get to court and which solicitors have you used.

admin: For advice, please email sasha@opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk :kiss:
Last Edit:06 Oct 2023 13:27 by S
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Fiona Cambell v David Teenan/Optical Express et al

Posted 12 Sep 2021 15:38 #4
As I predicted, Optical Express settled Fiona's case soon after my previous post on Friday :kiss:

Fiona is bound by an agreement not to defame Optical Express, but does she need to, as the fact that she took legal action and won says it all!

Meanwhile, yet another pre trial hearing v David Teenan and Optical Express tomorrow - an Optimax patient on the list too!


With many claims already settled, there are lots more cases to be listed in the Scottish courts v DavidTeenan/OE.

Somewhat amusing therefore, that I have another recording from one of my #MBEF clients, in which she asks Teenan about the numbers of his patients she'd heard are suing him.

Somewhat ruffled, he tried to dismiss this fact by replying: 'I can guarantee that none of them will be successful!'

David Teenan was presumably suffering temporary amnesia, as there'd already been a number of successful legal claims against him at that time!
Last Edit:12 Sep 2021 15:39 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Fiona Cambell v David Teenan/Optical Express et al

Posted 10 Sep 2021 15:43 #5
Music to my eyes [sic] :kiss:

Unfortunately the complete list of defendants not listed, but be assured it includes Optical Express!

However, I guarantee this will not make it into court (remote hearing), because OE will settle to avoid more bad publicity. But, if by any chance I’m wrong (and I'll update you), y'all are invited to attend!

'If a member of public is interested in watching proceedings then they should email the court explaining why they are interested in watching proceedings and ask for a link for the hearing to be sent to them.'

Fiona Campbell first contacted me on 5 November 2015, and this is an excerpt from her first message:

"I came across your website [#OERML] completely by chance trying to find some details on an employee of Optical Express – Colin Berry - to follow up on some problems I am currently facing after having lens replacement.*

When first seeing the name of your website my heart sank, then when clicking onto it and reading the articles I felt physically sick.

I think my biggest fears may have been confirmed, ‘Optical Express have ruined my life’.

I am 26 years of age and underwent surgery with David Teenan in St Vincent Street Glasgow in July this year, and since surgery I have had nothing but problems with my eyes.’"

*In fact Fiona had ICLs (as discussed in the two previous posts re Optimax): a perfect example of how little patients understand about the procedures they buy with high pressure sales tactics, not meeting the surgeon until the day of surgery, optoms et al paid commission on sales (and surgeons paid extra if they pass their daily target!)

When one of his many damaged patients asked David Teenan why he hadn't discussed the consent form with her before he operated, he replied: ‘I don't have time…’. Entire consultation recorded, and I have a copy.

NB: Fiona’s legal case has taken a while due to an incompetent legal firm who handled her case until 2019. Taken over by a competent lawyer, the case is almost at its end.

More to come...
Last Edit:10 Sep 2021 16:09 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic DEVONSHIRES | Hodge Jones & Allen solicitors

Posted 24 Dec 2020 15:35 #6
€1,696,153.84 - what a fantastic result for Hodge Jones & Allen
(solicitor Peter Todd) and #Devonshires (solicitor Karen Cathcart) :kiss:

But definitely not for their 126 unhappy clients fitted with faulty Oculentis lens implants…

Devonshires clients each received £4,500, and HJA clients approx £6,050 - unarguably the WORST out of court Settlement Agreements (SA) I've yet seen for claimants damaged by refractive eye surgery!
(Copy of the 11 page SA posted by one of the claimants below)

Though both amounts an insulting pittance, it should now be of interest to Devonshires clients that HJA clients received almost 25% more than they did!

NB: We do not have 'Class action’ in the UK, ‘Group Litigation’ is the term used to describe collective legal action, yet this was Peter Todd's (HJA) email to me on 6 June 2018:

My 18 & 23 June posts discussed this matter in detail, which lead to both solicitors telling claimants that Oculentis (aka Teleon) might withdraw their offer because I had published, one person even sending a message asking me to take down my posts!

This was utter bullsh*t (or I obviously understand the mentality of this industry better than HJA & Devonshires do!) because I knew full well that Oculentis wouldn’t withdraw their offer.

The truth is, both law firms were desperate for their massive profits from the ‘class action’, because if less than 95% agreed to accept the SA, then Oculentis would withdraw the offer - in my opinion it would have been better for clients had they done so, forcing the lawyers to negotiate a better deal, as other firms have done!

And I have had sight of (and am in possession of) many of the emails and letters both Peter Todd and Karen Cathcart sent to their clients, with warnings not to post on any of my social media sites, not to discuss their details with anyone else in the closed #MBEF group, to delete any comments, and to stop following any of my pages, keeping each claimant isolated and scared they might lose the pittance they eventually received!

Regardless of which, throughout the last year, more than 25% of HJA and Devonshires clients involved in this claim have contacted me with their concerns about the position they found themselves in, and some more recently with concerns about the SA they have been forced to accept.

These are a few of the issues to consider:

1. Many claimants had their surgery at Optegra Eye Hospital, bilateral cost £7,000.
2. Some clients still need explants, bilateral cost approx £7-11,000, depending on choice of surgeon - of course free with nhs.uk!
(When asked by one client if cover of costs for future explants would be included in the SA, Karen Cathcart assured them this was being discussed with Oculentis. Yet this has not been included, and I believe clients may not even have recourse to the Oculentis Patient Pathway after signing this agreement.*)
3. Clients who signed up with Devonshires were assured that their claim would be dealt with on its own merits, definitely not as part of a group. I also have a recording of their Head of Dept (Nick Grant) confirming this to me.
4. HJA joined forces with Devonshires in September 2018, as I was told that Devs were allegedly struggling with the Oculentis cases, whilst Peter Todd had more expertise in this field, aggressively advertising and ambulance chasing clients.
5. Isolated clients who individually disputed this settlement were told by their lawyer that if they didn't accept it their claim would be dropped and they would be billed for legal fees.
5. Many of the clients I have spoken with did not have a medicolegal expert report, many need further expensive medical treatment, yet all received the same amount (as those with same legal representation).
6. Every client should be provided with a 'statute bill of costs', a detailed breakdown of costs showing exactly what the law firms have charged for. Not provided to the claimants who’ve contacted me.

So whilst the bad news is that this is the WORST settlement I have seen to date, and both Peter Todd and Karen Cathcart should be ashamed of themselves, there is some good news!

A number of the 126 clients party to this SA with Oculentis have approached other law firms, who have agreed to look at their initial claim to consider if they’ve been undersettled, with the possibility of taking legal action if they have, whilst a specialist firm is looking at the costs issue, as it's possible clients may be entitled to claim a percentage of this money for themselves.

Complaints are also being made to the Legal Ombudsman.

Be aware, both Devonshires and HJA will read this post, and likely to contact clients concerned, attempt to discredit me, and dissuade you from pursuing this path. (Devs did this previously, after I advised clients to ask for an interim summary of costs before accepting the low settlement offers from Optical Express that they were being pushed to agree to.)

However, no matter what they may tell you, you are legally allowed to share all details with another lawyer should you wish to do so.

You should also send a Subject Access Request to whichever law firm represented you, who are obliged to provide you with ALL correspondence and documentation relating to your claim.

As I told one person who asked me about this a few weeks ago, worried that Devs or HJA would make him give the money back if he talked to another lawyer, they cannot do so, and Oculentis certainly don't want more bad publicity!

For more info contact: sasha@mybeautifuleyes.co.uk

*Posted 23 June: ’Yesterday I contacted Oculentis CEO Ben Wanders, asking for details of how #MBEF clients can access this if not currently in litigation. He has failed to respond.

Today I emailed Topcon MD, Andrew Yorke, asking how this will work for many of the 130 people who do, or may in the future, need explants - because once that €1.75m agreement is signed, unless included in its terms, they have no guarantee that this will be paid for.

And I also asked, given that Optegra Eye Hospital chain may be sold, or out of business by the end of 2020,* could he explain how this eventuality would affect their patients who have been assured that Optegra will provide explants that might be needed in the future
Last Edit:25 Dec 2020 14:23 by admin
  • tony m

Replied by tony m on topic DO NOT USE DEVONSHIRES SOLICITORS

Posted 27 Nov 2020 08:40 #7
I had lens replacement surgery carried out by Optical Express in 2014.
The surgery was a complete failure and left my vision worse than it was prior to the surgery. I suffered from blurred vision, auras, headaches and high sensitivity to light without improvement to normal vision.

After repeated failed requests to Optical Express to remedy the problems I decided to seek legal advice and I used a firm of solicitors called Devonshires on a no win no fee basis, but unfortunately it soon became apparent that my solicitors were not progressing my claim effectively and I was forced to make a formal complaint to them.
This complaint was not (and has never been) adequately answered or addressed so I decided to look at changing solicitors, unfortunately Devonshires would not agree to me using a different solicitor unless I immediately paid their fees of around £32,000 even though they could have waited until my case was settled.

My claim has now been settled and the last I knew about the level of fees Devonshires racked up from my case was around £132,000, but they told me I HAD to accept a settlement of £35,000. Needless to say I am completely dissatisfied with Devonshires and I am considering pursuing the matter with the legal ombudsman.
Last Edit:03 Dec 2020 19:07 by tony m
  • Victim


Posted 22 Nov 2020 16:31 #8
Screwed over by everyone in this OCULENTIS case- My solicitor warned me off posting in Social media & now I know why!!? They didnt want to risk us all talking cos if all of us had got together it would only have took 8 of us to refuse & we could have fought this & solicitor's would have to do better job for us!! I wont say Who was my solicitor in case they ask me for the 4500 pounds back!!!!!

admin: Pls email sasha@mybeautifuleyes.co.uk as I would very much like to speak with you (I guarantee this will be treated in strictest confidence).

NB: Anyone else who was party to this agreement is also invited to contact me, as you may possibly have grounds for a legal claim against these two ambulance chasing law firms, Devonshires and Hodge Jones & Allen
Last Edit:14 Dec 2020 17:56 by Victim
  • Jaycee

Replied by Jaycee on topic Clever Katie Lewis

Posted 30 Aug 2019 09:42 #9
Absolutely shocking how Optical Express keep damaging and then screwing their patients - Katie well done for taking them to court, you are so brave and Sasha for working tirelessly to put this out there.

When I started my journey in 2012 there was NOTHING and NOWHERE to look for information, as we know, these companies including Optical Express made sure of that. Now we have, thanks to Sasha's platforms which are growing and are very busy with people telling their stories (all of which are horrific and have ruined peoples lives). We are now getting great help where we can talk about what these companies have done to our eyesight and how to fight them in Court, and importantly discuss which Solicitors are there to help the victim and those who are just running up their own costs and have no intention of allowing the patient their day in court.

My case was settled out of court (against my wishes) and the solicitors got more than I did out of it. I recommend that you ask Sasha if you want to know which solicitors you can trust.

For those who are considering any treatment for their eyes - join the sites, read the comments, and think about this carefully.
Last Edit:30 Aug 2019 10:09 by Jaycee
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Clever Katie Lewis

Posted 20 Jun 2019 12:10 #10

29 August 2019: Needless to say, Optical Express complied with her terms, and whilst Katie can't post anything more online, she got the better of them by getting her story out regardless of the 'gagging' agreement that so many people have been forced to sign simply to get their money refunded.

How we did it: Katie told the truth, she (and I) had posted details of her claim on OERML forum, but I hid the posts until today, so Optical Express had no idea of their existence - they do now :kiss:
Last Edit:29 Aug 2019 17:02 by admin
Moderators: admin

OERML & My Beautiful Eyes Foundation rely on your support to expose the horrors of this unregulated industry.

Your help is very much appreciated!