Following my post on 30 November, discussing Steven Schallhorn's move to Carl Zeiss, Optical Express have removed the title of Chief Medical Director from Stevie's bio, although they still claim that he's an advisor to the FBI!
David Teenan is worryingly listed as UK Medical Director!
How many people have to take legal action against the same doctor before someone thinks, 'Hmmm... there might be a teeny weeny problem with this man's surgical skills, maybe we should stop him operating and damaging more eyes'?
So Hannan is bullying the elderly now as well! Where should I start .
AnneH you say that Hannan is a bully but you may have realised he is also a despicable little liar.
Seems you were in the same place as me, they ruined your eyes and when you are at your most desperate get you to sign a gagging order, or no more treatment!
Now they threaten you with legal action, don't be surprised there is no depth to which this company will not go in order to keep the cash cow going.
If you read through my posts you will see I have been thrown out of Harley St by the police (several times) for politely asking for a refund and no one will even sit down and talk to me .
Stephen Hannan is a liar but actually is too stupid to cover his tracks. He has sent me countless letters and emails full of lies. This man has no shame and obviously does not care a jot who's eyes they ruin.
Stephen Hannan - as you're throwing your weight around again shall I repost some of our email exchanges so we can see all your nasty lies exposed again?
I have not gone away, far from it!
HANNAN - YOU'RE A BULLY A LIAR AND A NASTY PIECE OF WORK .
Optical Express Ruined My Life Forum
01 Dec 2016 21:55 #143
Julian Stevens is one of the most arrogant people I have ever met, and I have noticed that many other victims who have had the misfortune of being referred to him felt the same. My eyes were trashed at Optimax, but I was treated in the most horrible fashion by this man too, and he shared information with Optimax about the consultation, even though they had not made the referral or paid for it. Not only had he shown no respect for my patient confidentiality, but he told them more about my eyes than he could be bothered to tell me.
I've had the unpleasant experience of seeing Julian Stevens some years ago for an appointment, sent there by OE while they were trying to fix my eyes from the damage they did, I found him to be the most arrogant idiot I've ever encountered, he consistently looks down on people and his comments are rude and aggressive. Not a nice individual, and I would question his ability too as he completely misdiagnosed what was wrong with my eyes and failed to see the damage done by OE, but then of course that's the case, OE were paying him for that appointment!
AnneH wrote: I am disgusted that the letter from Stephen Hannan suggests that Optical Express have done me a favour by providing me with free treatment for 6 years and I should be grateful to them for allowing me to attend SIXTY TWO consultations!
I received this letter from Stephen Hannan telling me that if I don't get my posts removed from OERML they will take legal action against me! (I made a mistake it's 68 consultations I've had, not 62!)
What a cheek!!! They damaged my eyes and agreed to provide refractive lens exchange [RLE/NLR] free of charge but I had to sign this form first that I did not understand.
Under pressure thinking I had no choice I signed it and sent it back to try to get my eyes fixed. The procedure was carried out but my vision was no better and my eyes were still chronically dry and painful.
The optometrist I met with on a regular basis told me that because I was one of the complex cases all my aftercare would be free for life. This changed the minute I asked for my money back.
My last appointment with OE was on July 6th 2016. I met with David Teenan (Surgeon) Colin Berry (Optmetrist) at 200 St Vincent Street, Glasgow. David Teenan asked what I wanted to do regarding further procedures. I asked for his guidance and he told me he would not recommend any more surgery because this would probably enhance the dryness. I was told they would work on trying to control the dryness. I told him they had been trying this for almost six years without success and never during this time being able to see without prescription glasses. This time I asked for my money back. Then I was told that appointments with the optometrist would now cost £50, and £150 for surgeon appointments, and I would have to pay for all medications needed.
The NHS now pick up the tab for my medication or treatments.
I spoke to OE's Martin Gray today and I advised him that I would not remove any posts. I get my pension in a few months and they think they can pursue damages from me after the damage, pain and stress they have caused me. What bullies they are, trying to intimidate older vulnerable people!!!
If there are any journalists who want any more information on my case please feel free to contact me through this website or Sasha.
__________________________ admin: Surprised you have time to follow this forum with the hundreds of letters you have to sign to complaining patients every day, but no posts being removed Tweedles...
I suggest you read OERML's Terms & Conditions
And you might be interested to know that Steve Schallhorn has shares in AMO, who provide much of Optical Express' hardware, including the Femtosecond Laser used on many of you unhappy lens exchange patients!
A perfect example of the incestuous nature of this industry, Stevie and Moorfields surgeon Julian Stevens both hold consultancy positions with AMO.
Julian used to be OE's favoured Mr Fixit until that position was taken over by David O'Brart a few years ago...
If Stevie stays with OE as IMAB Chair, then it is surely a conflict of interests, because who will take him seriously if he is advising OE while Zeiss are trying to get their competitors to buy from them?
A little birdie told me btw, that until I posted the news on OERML (20 Oct) few people at Optical Express even knew that Stevie had quit!
Below is misleading/inaccurate rubbish that is supposed to be info for the public published by the NHS.
I believe this is based on info provided by the trustworthy(!!) Royal College of Ophthalmologists - who allegedly take advice from Optical Express on how to deal with matters!
"During the procedure, a thin protective layer is created in the front of the cornea with one type of laser, then the cornea is reshaped by another type of laser."
PROTECTIVE LAYER MY A**, IT'S A LASIK FLAP THAT PERMANENTLY WEAKENS THE CORNEA !
"LASIK can improve both reading and distance vision, allowing you to socialise and do outdoor activities without glasses."
YEAH RIGHT ! ANNEKA RICE'S BLENDED VISION TURNED OUT BAD !
"There's also a small risk of potentially serious complications that could threaten your vision, such as the cornea becoming infected or scarred. But these problems are rare and can be treated with corneal transplantation when they do occur."
From the outset it was apparent that she was fully cognizant of the workings of Optical Express, and I have no doubt that she’d read everything she could find on them - including OERML!
And when I later looked at her Wikipedia page I discovered that as a young barrister in the 70s, Nicola Davies became recognised as a medical specialist, which possibly gave her an advantageous insight into the case (pun unintended).
Schillings represented OE, and their legal team included an unknown bespectacled male in his fifties, Charlotte Watson, and Nick Brough, as far as I can tell from the outdated profile photos on the company website (I invite Schillings to correct me if I’m wrong!).
And while the Defendant's legal team greeted me warmly, the Schillings lot looked like they wanted to shoot me!
I don’t think they like me much as I gave them a lot of negative press on my sites after discovering that David Moulsdale hired them to spy on me at a court hearing in May 2015 v Russell Ambrose/Optimax.
David Moulsdale’s subsequent response to my Subject Access Request (SAR) later in 2015 provided me with emails between him and Schillings, which included a transcript of the hearing, written by Schillings lawyer Alexandra Macready, who at the time - when I reasonably asked what her interest was in attending - lied and told me she was ‘just a member of the public’. (At the time I thought Russell Ambrose had sent her!)
Three of my supporters - and a journalist from the Press Association had sat alongside Alex, and told me that she had not made copious notes - if any at all, certainly not enough for the extensive and almost word for word transcript she gave to David Moulsdale! There were a few mistakes, which I could appreciate if the transcription had been taken from a not too clear recording rather than a person’s notes!
I then sent Schillings an SAR, and asked for a copy of Ms Macready’s handwritten notes, but they argued that this was 'protected by legal professional privilege’.
Unfortunately I have limited time and far more important things to do than chase this up with the Ministry of Justice, but trust Schillings have copies of Alex’s notes in their files.
In the same letter, Schillings also wrote, 'We note that the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has already provided you with certain personal data, some of which is held by us, in response to a subject access request.’...
And an email from Moulsdale, on 9 June 2015, told Bruce Allan that he’d met with Schillings the previous day when they'd provided legal advice to help the College remove me from the Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group.
So there you have it - David Mousdale provided vicarious legal advice to the RCO
NB: At one point on Wednesday the Judge referred to the RCO standards, which highlighted the importance of fighting the College's unmerited claims to be published in the new standards!
Back to the hearing…
Mrs Justice Davies told OE’s Counsel that she’d read the [Stephanie] Holloway Judgement* the day before, and was familiar with Judge Edward Bailey’s ruling**, and understood the relevance of the 2013 Patient Advisor Flow (PAF)***.
**It took 3.5 hrs for the wonderful Judge Bailey to read his judgement, which I thought was somewhat lengthy. At the time I had no understanding of the importance of ensuring it was accurately recorded and documented, as it will be quoted time and time again in countless future legal cases, not just v Optical Express.
***The PAF is the internal sales manual that I gave to Stephanie’s legal team which helped prove that her evidence about the sales process/pressure was true. It’s an enormously powerful document that now helps everyone’s legal claims. I have no idea who sent it to me (honestly boys!), but yet again - I thank whoever did so from the bottom of my heart!
Counsel for Optical Express was hawk nosed David Sherborne, sporting an expensive suntan.
The Defendant's lovely RPC legal team included Keith Mathieson, Rupert Cowper-Coles, Alison Soens, and Liz Hartley from Associated Newspapers.
Defence counsel David Glen did an excellent job, and scored more points with the Judge than David Sherborne did. But as I always say, you can’t defend the indefensible!
The latter became quite frustrated with the Judge, especially when his team were unable to find documents that seemingly didn’t exist, trying to persuade her to accept his arguments. Mrs Justice Davies cut him off a number of times, and on the way out of the courts David Sherborne was overheard telling the Schillings team that she had misinterpreted everything he’d said.
Don’t think so David!
As I mentioned in my earlier post, OE claimed that many of their records had been deleted as part of an IT upgrade in March 2016, and their decision to wipe records and back up servers of 'potentially valuable and relevant documents' was questioned by the Defence.
The Judge told Mr Sherborne that there were programmes available to retrieve deleted documents, and ordered OE to produce ALL the documents the Defendants were asking for, including the 2008 PAF and financial records.
Mr Scherborne argued that the structure and size of the company(s) pre 2012 was not relevant to the case, and that previous PAF manuals have no bearing on subsequent PAFs.
Clever Mrs Justice Davies sharply replied that as the word ‘flow’ means to follow on, it was reasonable to assume that the 2013 PAF therefore ‘flowed’ on from its predecessors!
The Defendants want year on year financial records from 2010 to prove that OE’s losses are not due to the Daily Mail story. In fact, OE’s declared losses had already increased by 9.2% in 2013.
Definitely unlucky for OE, they have been ordered to disclose these by Friday 13 January 2017!
Supporting the rationale for all documents to be disclosed, Mrs JD said, ‘this is a case of such magnitude, one of its like that has not been seen in front of the libel courts for many years.’
The Defendants had intended to call only three witnesses at trial, while Optical Express had listed nine… but after the Defendants named two additional witnesses OE added another twenty-one!!
The Judge said that was ridiculous and told OE to provide written witness statements instead!
Possibly due to dust, my eyes were burning and streaming with tears the entire time, reminding me what had lead us all to be present in that court room!
Meanwhile, I understand that the Defendants also intend to apply for 'security of costs’, as there are concerns that OE may not have sufficient funds to pay the costs when if they lose.
Lots more of course, but I hope that I’ve covered the main points for the time being.
I am very much looking forward to the trial next year, but - as I keep saying, I will be amazed if OE actually let it get that far!
I sincerely hope I’m wrong, as I can think of nothing more entertaining than a few weeks in the company of David Moulsdale et al!