Transient Vision Loss In One Eye not Properly Investigated, Leading to Disabling Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke — $350,000 Settlement in California. We thank Daniel M. Hodes, attorney for the plaintiff, for sending us a report of this case. On January 11, 2001, the claimant, a precision machinist, reported to his primary care physician that over the previous eight months he had experienced four episodes of uncharacteristic and unsettling transient right eye blindness. The physician charted that the patient would see something like "a white curtain" come down over his right eye. He also reported occasional diplopia and "moving worms" in the lateral visual fields, bilaterally. The primary care physician referred the patient to an ophthalmologist, who saw him on January 17, 2001. He was diagnosed with ophthalmic migraines. The patient experienced several more episodes of painless right eye blindness, which lasted for several minutes each time, up until December 8, 2001, when he suffered a right middle cerebral artery stroke. Further imaging revealed a completely occluded right internal carotid artery. The plaintiff alleged that the standard of care required both the primary care physician and the ophthalmologist to order a carotid ultrasound in January 2001, since the claimant's symptoms were consistent with amaurosis fugax. Had the ultrasound been performed, it would have shown a high grade occlusion of the plaintiff's right internal carotid artery, which likely would have led to an endarterectomy, which would have prevented the stroke. The defendant maintained that complaints of monocular transient blindness accompanied by a perception of a "white" curtain is not characteristic of amaurosis fugax. It is more consistent with an ophthalmic migraine, and that is the diagnosis that was properly made. The patient suffered left-sided weakness and mild dysarthia following the stroke, coupled with general "slowed" mentation capacity. The claimants sought non-economic damages for the stroke, loss of consortium, and further claimed that the patient was unemployable. This action was resolved in settlement during arbitration for the sum of $350,000. Plaintiff's Experts: Roy Hemdon, M.D., internal medicine, Orange, CA. David Sacks, M.D., ophthalmology, Santa Ana, CA. Kenneth Nudleman, M.D., neurology, Santa Ana, CA. Defendant's Experts: Edwin Amos, M.D., neurology, Santa Monica, CA. Alfredo Sadun, M.D., neuro-opthalmology, Los Angeles, CA. Lee Kissel, M.D., internal medicine, Manhattan Beach, CA. Doe v. Roe, Orange County (CA) Superior Court, Case No ______. Daniel M. Hodes, Lopez, Hodes, Restaino, Milman and Skikos, Newport Beach, CA, for the plaintiff. Ted O' Leary, Bonne, Bridges et al., for the defendant.