Minnie Alston for complication[s]"
such as dislocation as a consequence of rubbing her eye. In fact, Dr. Jaffe
testified that based upon his review of Alston's medical records, Alston did
nothing wrong, such as rubbing her eye, to cause the dislocation. The haptic
could have dislocated without trauma; it could "find its way" to the
opening by a hard cough or from squeezing or blinking her eye. In Dr. Jaffe's
opinion, Dr. Marvelli's positioning of the implant increased the likelihood of a
dislocation, which is what happened in the first operation.
Dr. Jaffe further criticized Dr. Marvelli's technique, based on his
assumption that Dr. Marvelli entered at the same incision site on four
surgeries, which, in his opinion, was a "contributory factor" to the
epithelial downgrowth. It would have been better, he said, to use a new incision
each time.Going through the same incision site created an unstable wound that
would leak on and off and allowed complications to develop. Alston could have
then created the wound leak from the unstable wound by trauma or, for instance,
just a wrong step on a stairway. The wound leak, in his opinion, allowed the
epithelial downgrowth to develop.
Dr. Jaffe acknowledged on cross-examination that Alston had a good medical
result after her first surgery until December 1996. He agreed it was possible
that rubbing could cause a dislocation of a lens implant. He also agreed that
she had a good result from the second surgery until she had her second acute
deterioration of vision. With the type of implant she had and its location, he
agreed she could have dislocated her own implant by rubbing or striking her eye
as