after he had been anesthetized with Versed. Docket No. 79 at ¶6. However, the surgery took place. During the surgery, Plaintiff’s iris or pupil—the record is conflicting—began to contract. This circumstance required the use of a hook-like “retractor” to keep the aperture open so that the surgery could continue. After the surgery, Plaintiff suffered “corneal clouding,” which Defendant describes as “a known complication of cataract surgery that was discussed with [Plaintiff] during his Informed Consent session with the surgeon.” Docket No. 75 at 3:2-4. Plaintiff also claims to have suffered “severe corneal edema, which caused severe pain, some ptosis, disorientation, discomfort and problems with glare and depth of field vision as well as greatly diminished visual acuity.” Docket No. 1 at ¶7. Both sides agree that Plaintiff requires continuing treatment, with uncertain prospects for success. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed a “Complaint for Battery and Negligent Medical Malpractice” in this court. See Docket No. 1. The complaint named the United States and Dr. Bishop as co-defendants. Id. On May 23, 2005, the United States moved to substitute itself in place of Dr. Bishop. See Docket No. 12.1 Plaintiff did not oppose the proposed substitution, and the motion was granted on June 27, 2005. See Docket Nos. 13 and 15. Deadlines were extended several times. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 21, 30, 50, 61, 68. The operative scheduling order was filed on May 9, 2007, setting
after he had been anesthetized with Versed. Docket No. 79 at ¶6. However, the surgery took place. During the surgery, Plaintiff’s iris or pupil—the record is conflicting—began to contract. This circumstance required the use of a hook-like “retractor” to keep the aperture open so that the surgery could continue. After the surgery, Plaintiff suffered “corneal clouding,” which Defendant describes as “a known complication of cataract surgery that was discussed with [Plaintiff] during his Informed Consent session with the surgeon.” Docket No. 75 at 3:2-4. Plaintiff also claims to have suffered “severe corneal edema, which caused severe pain, some ptosis, disorientation, discomfort and problems with glare and depth of field vision as well as greatly diminished visual acuity.” Docket No. 1 at ¶7. Both sides agree that Plaintiff requires continuing treatment, with uncertain prospects for success. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed a “Complaint for Battery and Negligent Medical Malpractice” in this court. See Docket No. 1. The complaint named the United States and Dr. Bishop as co-defendants. Id. On May 23, 2005, the United States moved to substitute itself in place of Dr. Bishop. See Docket No. 12.1 Plaintiff did not oppose the proposed substitution, and the motion was granted on June 27, 2005. See Docket Nos. 13 and 15. Deadlines were extended several times. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 21, 30, 50, 61, 68. The operative scheduling order was filed on May 9, 2007, setting
120501-May-5-Final-Corrections-to-Petition-Word-2007-97-2003-compatibility.docx