1. Facts
1.1. Parties
1.1.1. Helling
1.1.1.1. Patient that claims she was not properly screened for glaucoma
1.1.2. Carey, Laughlin
1.1.2.1. Ophthalmologists that were purported to not properly screen Helling for glaucoma
1.2. Scenario
1.2.1. Helling was treated for years by Thomas Carey and Robert Laughlin for poor vision, but was never screened for glaucoma
1.2.2. At 32 years of age, finally tested her eye pressure and field of vision and was diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma
1.2.3. Helling sued Dr. Carey and Dr. Laughlin, stating their negligence proximately caused permanent damage to her eyes
1.2.4. At trial, expert witnesses stated that regular tests were not required for patients under 40 years. The jury ruled in favor of Carey and Laughlin. The court of appeals affirmed the judgement.
1.2.5. The state's supreme court reversed the ruling. Although one of 25,000 people under 40 is affected by glaucoma, that person deserves the same protection as the others.
1.2.5.1. Eye pressure test is inexpensive and simple
1.3. Disease
1.3.1. Open-angle Glaucoma
1.3.1.1. Can cause permanent vision loss
1.3.1.2. Diagnosis
1.3.1.2.1. Measuring intra-ocular pressure
1.3.1.3. Treatment options
1.3.1.3.1. Pharmaceuticals
1.3.1.3.2. Laser Therapy
1.3.1.3.3. Surgery
2. Issue
2.1. Dr. Carey and Dr. Laughlin complied with the standards of their medical specialty. Should they be insulated from liability?
3. Rule of Law
3.1. Standard of Care in Health Professionals
3.1.1. Standard states that those under 40 need not be screened for glaucoma
3.2. The one person out of 25,000 deserves the same protection as the other 24,999.
3.3. The concept of "Reasonable Prudence"
3.3.1. The eye doctors have a responsibility to be reasonably cautious for some chronic disease prevention and screening
4. Application
4.1. Standard of Care
4.1.1. Drs. Carey and Laughlin did practice under the standard of care in the United States by not screening before age 40
4.1.2. However, should they have screened for a patient with continual eye problems?
4.2. Reasonable Prudence
4.2.1. Drs. Carey and Laughlin should have exhibited reasonable prudence for Helling
5. Conclusion
5.1. Reversed
5.1.1. Drs. Carey and Laughlin were found to be negligent because they were not reasonable prudent in screening Helling for glaucoma because of her eye problems