Laser Myopia Surgery Complicated with Keratoconus: Medical Records and Burden of Proof
Patient A (the plaintiff at district court) suffered from myopia and was treated by doctor B (the defendant). Doctor B performed the laser myopia surgery for bilateral eyes exactly at the same morning A came to clinic. Unfortunately blurred vision followed, and A was told 2 years post-operatively that keratoconus developed. A was then treated with rigid gas contact lens to correct corneal condition but in vain, and subsequently by corneal transplantation 6-8 years post-operatively. The patient A filed the civil action herein for damages caused by doctor B. The District Court found for the plaintiff A, however was reversed by the appealed court, which decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. A then prevailed in the subsequent remanded decision by High Court and Supreme Court, which held that the burden of proof should be reversed because doctor B disposed the medical records against the regulation stipulated in Medical Care Act, which caused the great difficulty hindering A to prove that doctor B is liable. Besides the Supreme Court held that A’s action was still within the Statute of Limitations. Two authors comment on this case with special emphasis on the application of the Statute of Limitations, and how the disposing medical records should reverse the burden of proof.