After reading the shocking content of my SAR data received from Luther Pendragon on 3 May (the reason for my potential legal claim against Optical Express for defamation/malicious falsehood) I lost no time in issuing SARs to a number of other organisations I realised were involved in some way!
I received my data from Optimax on 6 June, Optical Express on 9 June, and others have filtered through in accordance with the 40 days time limit set by the ICO.
Albeit a few days late - because at 5pm on Friday afternoon Kathy Evans (RCOpth Chief Exec) alleged problems with the photocopier - the postman delivered the College's disclosure yesterday.
Although I haven’t yet had time to read thoroughly, I did note that the College didn't edit the emails as they wrongly did in response to my SAR in 2015, and they have also resent docs from my previous SAR unredacted.
This includes correspondence David Moulsdale sent to Bruce Allan and others, and shows email addresses previously hidden from me. So perhaps the College has had enough of being linked to Optical Express, and appearing to collude with them.
Bit late for that methinks, especially having invited OE’s Medical Director David Teenan as a core member of the RSSWG and kicking me off to keep David Moulsdale happy!
That really worked out well for them, with OE refusing to accept the RCOphth standards
Meanwhile, the SAR responses from FODO, CT Pillai, and Dan Reinstein, are another matter.*
They have all blatantly withheld data!
FODO’s response arrived last week, and is beyond ludicrous: just one page showing only six items from/to me!
And I understand that when he received my SAR, CT ran to FODO and asked what he should do before replying. Fifteen days later he asked me for a £10 fee, as he was entitled to, but should have done immediately on receipt of my SAR. He was warned that the 40 days time limit still applied as the DPA rules don't accept stalling tactics.
Then, after I challenged CT Pillai's disclosure last week, he ridiculously claimed that he regularly deletes mail, even though he'd disclosed emails pre-dating the ones that he claims he hasn’t got, and wrote, 'you have provided no further details about which emails you are referring to and so we cannot comment further.'
I replied, 'You obviously don't delete your emails as regularly as you imply, given that the date on some of those you have disclosed is July 2017.
I suggest that you search through your claimed deleted emails as a matter of urgency, and if necessary employ an IT expert to do it for you.
And nor will I provide you with details of emails I know that you have not disclosed, because I don't intend to miss out on the fun of seeing how far you will go before I expose you as a bare faced liar!
For your information, I lodged a complaint with the ICO last week and will be forwarding your recent email to them.
An old adage that you and your cohorts should keep in mind: lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas!'
As for Dan Reinstein - after claiming on 6 June that he had no info other than our email exchanges, to which I replied ’Not true Dan!’ -he asked for a 9 days extension due to, 'switching IT companies’.
Good excuse to dispose of data!
Either I’m exceptionally clever - as I’m told I was so flatteringly described by a main player in OE’s latest farce - or they’re all exceptionally stupid, because the reason I sent out a total of twelve SARs was for exactly this purpose, to cross reference what came back and see who lied by omission.
And so far (RCOphth excepted for now) every one of them has done so!
It seems the only person who understood my intention was David Moulsdale, hence the heavily inked sheets of paper, most not showing even as much as a date!
The ICO are now investigating nine complaints I’ve made concerning the content of the SARs I’ve received so far, mostly relating to withheld data.
I can't give you any more detail until the barrister gives his opinion on my claim, but I promise all will eventually be revealed!
*CT Pillai @Advanced Vision Care @London Vision Clinic, and Dr Blindstein @London Vision Clinic, both members of the 'expert panel' who wrote FODO's refractive surgery standards, funded by Optical Express in opposition to the RCOphth standards.
CT invited by Russell Ambrose(!!), and Dan Reinstein perhaps because he likes to get his name on any publication he can, whether he wrote it or not - or so I'm told!
And no matter what amount you gave, every single £1 made a difference, and you can each feel proud that you played a part in helping me to look forward to finally publicising the scandal of this corrupt and unregulated industry!
I will of course update you as soon as I have any news that I can share publicly!
Meantime, for anyone who didn't pledge, but would like to donate to the ongoing costs of my work, you can do so via the 'DONATE link at the top of this page.
I can't deny that David Moulsdale has shown an unexpected sense of humour with OE’s disclosure under my recent SAR
The documents arrived this morning, with hundreds of pages of screenshots taken from my sites, but not even ‘Subject’ or dates showing on all but one of the redacted emails!
What can Optical Express possibly want to hide from me?
(I don't accept that they are allowed to do this btw, and my complaint will be with the ICO on Monday!)
They did let me see the Subject of one email however, ‘Allegations and Defamation by Sasha Rodoy’.
And although the date is redacted, the content shows a link to OERML's YouTube video tribute to damaged OE patient Hazel Jones last year - her surgeon Dr Duck aka Alex Kanackal George (Google "YouTube OERML | In memory of Hazel Jones")
Perhaps this was intended to make me nervous, inferring that they intend to sue me for defamation because of my pursuing legal action against them...
Difficult though, because NOTHING that I speak or publish is untrue when it comes to Optical Express and the refractive surgery industry!
Hence why OE have on numerous occasions written to the media, press, politicians, RCOphth etc… claiming they were taking legal advice with the intention of starting proceedings against me, but they never have: instead they spent in excess of £1million attempting to get OERML website down, claiming ‘abusive registration’ with three unsuccessful complaints to Nominet.
Surely far less costly to sue me, especially with the company losing so much money, as David Moulsdale inadvertently confessed to me last year when Siri called on his behalf!
And it was only after learning of Luther Pendragon’s existence and reading their SAR disclosures - which not only proved that the PR company had been instructed from 2014 to obstruct and thwart all my hard work, but also included an email from OE stating that although I had threatened to sue them on numerous occasions I had never followed through - that I realised I had no other option if I were to publicise the scandal of this unregulated and corrupt industry!
And for anyone not clear on this, My Beautiful Eyes Campaign for government regulation is aimed at the entire refractive industry, not just Optical Express!
The lies and celebrity advertising must be stopped, genuine statistics need to be collated - not by the industry! - and the government must stop feigning ignorance, with increasing numbers of damaged patients losing their jobs, forced to claim benefits and turning to the NHS for desperately needed treatment when refused aftercare 12 months post op...
So if you didn't understand before, for those who read my sites but haven’t yet put their hand on their credit/debit card, I hope I have clearly explained why it is so important that I raise £5,200 with the intent of taking legal action against Optical Express for libel and/or malicious falsehood.
I can't tell you what this is based on yet, not least because OE closely monitor everything I write, but it’ll make fascinating reading when I can!
Many of you reading this were happy to freely accept my services when you had nowhere else to turn to, and some of you have since received medical help and/or financial settlements that would not have happened without my work.
Yet the vast majority of the thousands of people I’ve helped in so many ways since 2012 have never once considered thanking me by making a contribution to My Beautiful Eyes Foundation, so that I can continue to offer a free service and help thousands more.
Don’t forget that if I don’t reach the target then I lose all that’s been raised so far, and with no money to pay my lawyer Mark Lewis then I will be unable to pursue my case and get the publicity so desperately needed to expose the scandal of the unregulated refractive eye surgery industry!
I would expect this email to make some of you feel ashamed for your lack of support:
Meanwhile, a huge thank you to each and every one of the 48 people who have pledged a total of £2,200 to date!
On 27 March I discovered that Optical Express have paid a crisis management team an estimated £1/4 million, over four years, to discredit me and stop all the publicity I have fought so hard for.
I knew nothing about this whatsoever until a little birdie whispered in my ear
I immediately sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the PR company, Luther Pendragon, and received their disclosure on 5 May - albeit incomplete, and my complaint now in the hands of the ICO.
I was stunned when I read the parts that Luther Pendragon did disclose!
Every move I've made over the last four years has been scrutinised, and I should be flattered that I do my job so well to merit this kind of expensive and intensive attention...
But enough's enough, and it stops now!
I am pleased to announce that Super lawyer Mark Lewis (google him) has agreed to represent me!
For this to happen I need to raise £5,200 for a barrister to investigate the potential claim and see whether I have a case for libel and/or malicious falsehood that can be pursued “no win no fee”.
Please help to fund my case and pledge a donation via my CrowdJustice campaign site. If I reach my target within 30 days then all funds raised go directly to my lawyer to cover my legal fees. But if the target is not met, then your credit/debit card will not be charged.
It’s all or nothing - and only 22 days to go!
So if you want to see me face David Moulsdale in court, and finally get the massive publicity so desperately needed to highlight the scandal of this unregulated industry and the many thousands damaged by it, then PLEASE PLEASE pledge your donation!
To supportive surgeons and others who'd like to keep their name hidden, when pledging simply click the 'No' option for anonymity.
As soon as I was told about Sarah Roche's trial last Tuesday morning - which had unfortunately slipped under my radar else I’d have been there that day - I contacted her solicitor and told her that I had OE internal emails/documents that I was willing to provide.
So there I was, all prepared and ready to fly to Dublin on Sunday to attend the trial for a few days this week!
Included in a fat file of OE internal docs for Sarah's legal team was the Patient Advisor Flow, a sales manual ultimately responsible for the judgement in Stephanie Holloway’s high profile trial against Optical Express and Dr Joanna McGraw in 2014.
I repeatedly warn solicitors representing OE damaged patients not to be out bluffed when discussing out of court settlements (so many) as OE will NOT risk going into court after the Holloway debacle, because the negative publicity and media cover for a second trial will be massive, with a little help from their ‘friends’ of course!
I was therefore astounded that OE had actually walked through the court doors on this occasion, and could not understand why they had taken the risk.
But knowing too well how they work, I was waiting to hear if Sarah's legal team thought the trial would last the week before I pressed ‘Buy’ for my flight on Sunday.
Meantime, I spoke with journalists and OERML supporters in Ireland...
Unsurprisingly, nonetheless disappointingly, on Thursday morning I received this from Sarah Roche's solicitor, 'We have now reached an out of court confidential settlement.'
Based on Stephanie Holloway’s 2014 court award (£569k + 8% interest), and Sandip Bains' out of court settlement last year (+£500k), I can only take a guess that Sarah Roche’s settlement must have been at least that amount, if not more. (If anyone knows do tell!)
I didn't publish the news immediately as I was trying desperately to get something of note to tell you, but her solicitor is now as gagged as Sarah is, and won't even give me details of what was presented in open court on Tuesday - which is why I should have been there!!
And that’s how Optical Express - and entire industry - remain in business!
My own Optimax 'gagging order' was so badly written and full of holes that it's been impossible to keep me quiet, but I know very well that had it been David Moulsdale I was negotiating with, my settlement agreement would have meant that I wouldn’t even be able to dream the name 'Optical Express’!
Which reminds me, I must write the next instalment of NMMNG soon
Note to all: I rely on people providing me with info I might otherwise have missed, so PLEASE don't hesitate to email me if you’ve got news about ANY refractive surgeon/clinic, just in case I don't have it!
'An action by a young woman alleging she is “essentially functionally blind” as a result of undergoing laser eye surgery which was unsuitable for her has been adjourned on consent at the High Court.
The adjournment on Thursday followed day long settlement talks between the sides but no details of the basis for adjournment were provided.
In proceedings which opened before Mr Justice Kevin Cross on Tuesday, Sarah Roche (33) sued Frank Lavery, a consultant ophthalmic surgeon, of Ailesbury Drive, Dublin 4, and DCM Laser Clinic Ltd, trading as Optical Express, with registered offices at Wellington Road, Dublin 4.
A project officer now living in Australia, she was living at Meadow Grove Estate, Blackrock, Cork, when she underwent the surgery after which she attended a number of post-operative reviews in Cork before leaving Ireland in 2008.
Ms Roche said in evidence she wanted the surgery before she went trekking in South America.
It was claimed, for reasons including she had a thin cornea and a prior refractive history and/or a history of progressive myopia, she was not suitable for the wavefront LASIK surgery performed on her by Mr Lavery at the Optical Express clinic in Dublin on May 7th, 2007.
Her counsel Oonagh McCrann SC said Ms Roche should never have been advised to have this particular surgery as a result of which she has been left “essentially functionally blind” except when she can wear complicated contact lenses she can tolerate for a maximum eight hours daily.
Both defendants delivered full defences denying her claims and the case had been expected to last three weeks.
Ms McCrann said Ms Roche, while in Australia, began towards 2012 to notice a deterioration in her eyesight. She was referred to a specialist and diagnosed with Ectasia secondary to Lasik treatment. This was an advanced progressive eye disease, where the cornea gets thinner and bulges.
Having been advised the condition would continue to deteriorate and she required treatment involving collagen cross linking on both eyes, she underwent that and is now in a position where she has vision when she wears a complicated contact lenses system which she can tolerate for about eight hours but otherwise is functionally blind, counsel said.'
'A young woman has been left "essentially functionally blind" as a result of undergoing laser eye surgery which was unsuitable for her, it has been claimed at the High Court.
Sarah Roche should never have been advised to have the wavefront LASIK surgery she underwent in 2007 and, as a result of it, has been left essentially functionally blind except when she can wear complicated contact lenses she can tolerate for a maximum eight hours daily, her counsel Oonagh McCrann SC said.
Ms Roche claims, for reasons including she had a thin cornea and a prior refractive history and/or a history of progressive myopia, she was not suitable for the LASIK surgery performed on her by Frank Lavery at the Optical Express clinic in Dublin on May 7, 2007.
In proceedings which opened before Mr Justice Kevin Cross on Tuesday, she has sued Mr Lavery, a consultant ophthalmic surgeon, of Ailesbury Drive, Dublin 4, and DCM Laser Clinic Ltd, trading as Optical Express, with registered offices at Wellington Road, Dublin 4.
Both defendants have delivered full defences denying her claims and the case is listed to last three weeks.
Ms Roche, a project officer now living in Australia, was living at Meadow Grove Estate, Blackrock, Cork, when she underwent the surgery in Dublin in May 2007 after which she attended post-operative reviews in Cork before leaving Ireland in 2008.
Among her claims, she alleges the procedure carried out was unsuitable for her, she was not advised of the risks and the necessary scans were either not carried out or, if they were, were not properly analysed.
Ms McCrann said extensive discovery was sought, no records of scans were provided and the defence said they could not find them.
Ms McCrann said the procedure was recommended to her client and she was delighted she was considered suitable for it. While the defence disputed Ms Roche attended all post-operative reviews, she maintained she attended all post operative appointments she was requested to attend, counsel said.
Ms Roche had travelled to Australia in 2008 and towards 2012 began to notice a deterioration in her eyesight, counsel said. She was referred to a specialist and diagnosed with Ectasia secondary to Lasik treatment. This was an advanced progressive eye disease, where the cornea gets thinner and bulges, counsel said.
Having been advised the condition would continue to deteriorate and she required treatment involving collagen cross linking on both eyes, she underwent that treatment which was aimed at halting the progression of Ectasia in both eyes.
Ms Roche is now in a position where she has vision when she wears a complicated contact lenses system which she can tolerate for about eight hours but she otherwise is functionally blind, counsel said.
In evidence, Ms Roche said she wanted the laser treatment before going trekking in South America. She said she never signed a consent form for the 25 minute procedure and did not remember any explanations of the procedure or the risks involved.
She got both eyes done on the day. “It was quick and easy. I was really happy with it."
Around Halloween that year she noticed a black dot on her eye and later had to have operations on her eyes while living in Australia, she said. She now has to wear contact lenses for vision and without them cannot see very well.'
Thanks to Sasha Rodoy, who was my guide and inspiration throughout the process, I sued and won!
My botched lens exchange surgery was performed by Mr Riaz Hassan Asaria in Dec 2013 at Optical Express Westfield store in White City shopping mall.
In 2015 I instructed a legal firm and started proceedings against Optical Express and the surgeon Mr Riaz Asaria.
I registered with the MHRA -
Then instruct a lawyer. Don't give up your fight. These eye shops selling botched surgery are on the back foot now so go for it!
_____________ admin: Mr Riaz Asaria no longer works for Optical Express, he's a consultant ophthalmologist in private clinics at London hospitals Saint John and Saint Elizabeth, the Royal Free, and the Wellington.
In 2017 Mr Asaria performed cataract surgery on a friend of mine at the Wellington (via BUPA). And guess what, my friend had problems!
Mr Riaz Asaria's name has been cropping up a lot recently, mentioned to me by local people with probems after cataract surgery (amazing how many there are!), and I realised why when I attended Whittington NHS Hospital a few months ago. There was his name on a consulting room door!