Source: http://www.lasikdecision2.com/?page_id=74
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:37:09+00:00

Document:
Disconcerting is that LVI is still promoting LASIK by mail and on TV starting at $299 per eye! While most are still at $1600 – $2500 per eye (average). Does the statement “You get what you pay for” come to mind?
HOUSTON, June 18 /PRNewswire/ — A federal appeals court has affirmed a $2.1 million award to American Laser Vision P.A. stemming from a contract dispute with a Lake Worth, Fla.-based chain of laser vision correction centers. The appeals court ruled that there was no basis to second-guess the arbitrator’s initial ruling.
In February 2002, American Laser Vision entered into a professional service agreement with The Laser Vision Institute. Under the agreement, American Laser Vision provided board-certified ophthalmologists to perform laser surgeries, while LVI agreed to perform the centers’ non-medical tasks.
In October 2003, American Laser Vision sought arbitration against LVI, claiming that LVI had interfered with the surgeons’ medical procedures and professional judgment. Specifically, American Laser Vision contended that LVI employees understated the chances that patients would need follow-up surgery to address medical complications and used non-refundable deposits as tools to coerce patients into buying the laser surgery.
American Laser Vision also claimed that LVI interfered with surgical protocol by changing surgical supplies without notifying the doctors, changing prescriptions without the doctors’ permission or notification, altering post-operative care requirements, and interfering with sterile surgical techniques.
In August 2004, an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association sided with American Laser Vision, granting the $2.1 million award. The arbitrator found that LVI had breached its agreements with American Laser Vision. LVI was ordered to pay actual damages for breach of contract of $1,842,220, attorney fees of $148,940, and pre-judgment interest.
A federal district court later upheld the award and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision.
Lasik Vision Institute; Musa Holdings; Laser Vision Institute; Vision Care Holdings; Eye Glass World ripoff advertising, pressure sales techniques, Very Slow to payback deposits, Day of Surgery Pressure Upsells. Nationwide *Consumer Suggestion ..Overworked and tired surgeons make mistakes.
Is low-cost LASIK eye surgery the way to go?
Chicago – Following a statewide advertising campaign that allegedly misrepresented the actual cost of corrective laser eye surgery, Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced that a settlement has been reached with a Florida company that performs the surgeries to ensure that future advertisements reflect the actual cost of its procedures.
Madigan’s office filed the lawsuit against Lasik Vision Institute, LLC, on Monday, November 21, and filed the settlement agreement today, November 28, both in Sangamon County Circuit Court. The lawsuit charged Lasik Vision Institute with violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Administrative Rules on Retail Advertising.
In signing the settlement agreement, Lasik Vision Institute agreed that all future advertisements will be in full compliance with Illinois law. In addition, the company has agreed to pay a voluntary contribution of $17,500 to the Attorney General Court Ordered and Voluntary Compliance Payment Project Fund for Consumer Enforcement and Education.
Madigan’s lawsuit alleged that between June 2003 and June 2004, Lasik Vision Institute advertised surgeries for “as low as $299” in newspapers statewide, including The Springfield State Journal-Register, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Peoria Journal Star and the Rockford Register Star. After June 2004, advertisements promoted “Lasik $499 per eye.” Madigan’s lawsuit alleged that the advertisements did not adequately disclose the limitations on the advertised price, nor did they disclose the range of prices of surgeries offered and the conditions for each. As a result, may consumers ended up paying more than the advertised price.
Madigan’s lawsuit alleged that prospective patients were required to pay a $100 non-refundable deposit before learning if the lower-cost procedure was appropriate for their vision needs. The Nidek laser procedure is a lower-cost option for corrective laser eye surgery; however, patients with certain prescriptions as well as pre-existing medical conditions, such as cataracts, diabetes and glaucoma, may not be eligible to undergo the surgery. Finally, Madigan’s lawsuit alleged Lasik Vision Institute advertised that screening exams would be conducted by a doctor of ophthalmology when, in fact, the exams were conducted by doctors of optometry.
The consent decree does not constitute an admission of guilt by Lasik Vision Institute.
Assistant Attorney General Cassandra Karimi is handling the case for Madigan’s Consumer Protection Division.
An ophthalmology company, once consisting of two doctors but eventually only one, arbitrated a complaint against a service company which helped run its clinics.
Mindful of the uncertainty of the legal relationships in this case and the wide latitude given to arbitrators, we decline to vacate the award and affirm.
1 Ocular tear plugs are small devices placed into the tear ducts which facilitate lubrication and, hence, healing.
formed American Laser Vision, which opened laser vision correction centers in Texas and Oklahoma.
Frazee and Selkin were each fifty-percent shareholders of ALV, with Selkin serving as President and primary administrator.
In early 2002, ALV signed a series of contracts with The Laser Vision Institute. Under those contracts, LVI would operate the eye centers by providing management, non-medical staff, and equipment, and ALV would provide the surgeons – Drs. Frazee and Selkin.
and misrepresenting to patients the risks and benefits of surgery.
In letters to LVI, Selkin wrote that he would like to return to work at the LVI centers if his concerns were addressed, but he never met with LVI or discussed how LVI might address his complaints. Meanwhile, Selkin worked at similar centers in North Carolina and Tennessee earning substantial fees. Selkin eventually complained that, following his withdrawal, LVI also failed to remit some professional and ocular plug revenues, improperly removed and damaged ALV equipment, and failed to pay vendors, in violation of the subleases.
ALV did not hire a replacement for Selkin, although the contract called for both Selkin and Frazee to work a certain number of hours each week. Frazee and LVI reached an agreement and Frazee continued to perform surgeries at the LVI centers.
Selkin then bought out Frazee?s interest in ALV and pursued a breach of contract claim by ALV against LVI, seeking an arbitral award of $4,031,241.55 for damages from 2002-2005. ALV sought $3,524,966.67 for lost surgery and tear plug revenue due to Selkin?s departure, $34,226.84 for surgeries allegedly performed but not yet paid, and less than $500,000 for the sublease and equipment claims.
2005, agreeing that they were unduly speculative. After a three-day hearing, the arbitrator issued an award concluding that LVI breached the professional service and sublease agreements and awarding ALV $1,842,220.39 in damages, plus interest, attorneys? fees, and costs.
Although the parties had agreed that the arbitrator need not file findings or otherwise explain his decision, LVI asked the arbitrator to explain the award.
The arbitrator declined, and the parties turned to the district court, which granted ALV?s motion for judgment and denied LVI?s request to vacate the award.
2 Brown v. Witco Corp., 340 F.3d 209, 216 (5th Cir. 2003).
3 Kergosien v. Ocean Energy, Inc., 390 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 2004).
4 Brabham v. A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc., 376 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2004).
5 Antwine v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc., 899 F.2d 410, 413 (5th Cir.
6 Nauru Phosphate Royalties, Inc. v. Drago Daic Interests, Inc., 138 F.3d 160, 164-65 (5th Cir. 1998)(internal quotation marks omitted).
7 Kergosien, 390 F.3d at 356.
8 Major League Baseball Players Assoc. v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001)(quoting Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S. Ct. 1358, 1361 (1960)).
inferable from the letter or purpose of the underlying agreement.? 6Even ?the failure of an arbitrator to correctly apply the law is not a basis for setting aside an arbitrator?s award.?
9 Executone Info. Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 26 F.3d 1314, 1325 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
10 Prestige Ford v. Ford Dealer Computer Servs., Inc., 324 F.3d 391, 395-96 (5th Cir. 2003).
13 Kergosien, 390 F.3d at 355.
14 See id. at 353.
9LVI attacks the arbitration award on two grounds: that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law and that the award does not draw its essence from the contracts.
perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator.?
established, the court also ?must find that the award resulted in a ?significant injustice?? in order to grant relief.
15Id. at 353-54 (internal quotation marks omitted).
460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S. Ct. 927, 941 (1983)).
test is ?whether the award, however arrived at, is rationally inferable from the contract.?
15??[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.??
16LVI argues both grounds. We give the award great deference, looking to both whether the arbitrator ?manifestly disregarded the law? and whether the award drew its essence from the contract.
LVI argues first that the arbitrator disregarded the plain meaning of the contracts by construing them as between Selkin and LVI, not ALV and LVI, and considering the losses of Selkin personally, not those of ALV. We are not persuaded. The record shows that the arbitrator was quite aware of the factual nuances of the case, the identities of the parties, and the flow of money.
LVI next argues that, if the arbitrator correctly analyzed only the losses accruing to ALV, then he completely ignored the notice and cure provisions because Selkin never attempted to provide notice and accept cure and, more importantly, ALV through Frazee provided notice and accepted cure of whatever problems may have existed.
arbitrator could have found that LVI had notice of the problems forming the basis of this entire dispute.
Third, LVI challenges the actual amount of the award. It argues that even if ALV might legitimately recover damages for the sublease breaches, and even if ALV recovered all such damages that it requested, the arbitrator also must have awarded about $1.3 million in lost income damages for 2002-2003. First, LVI contends, this represents damages to Selkin, not ALV. As we have noted, however, the arbitrator understood the distinction.
Second, it contends, either ALV failed to mitigate its damages by not hiring another doctor or Selkin fully mitigated all damages flowing to ALV with his high earnings in North Carolina and Tennessee.
17See Oil, Chem., & Atomic Workers Int?l Union v. Rohm & Haas, Tex., Inc., 677 F.2d 492, 495 (5th Cir. 1982).
performing them for ALV in Texas.
Indeed, the record reveals that the arbitrator dealt extensively with this possibility and recognized its difficulties.
the award has generated a collateral dispute.? 17None of those situations is present here.
Although, as explained above, the exact basis for the award is unclear, the parties agreed that the arbitrator need not state his reasons.
We will not second-guess multiple, implicit findings and conclusions underpinning the award. We do not decide if the award was free from error. We decide only that it is not the kind of extraordinary award that ineluctably leads to the conclusion that the arbitrator was ?dispensing his own brand of industrial justice.? There are advantages and disadvantages in contracting for private resolution of a dispute announced without explanation of reason. When a party does so and loses, federal courts cannot rewrite the contract and offer review the party contracted away.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.