PA lawsuit

[AutumN]

Has anyone in PA heard of a lawsuit that was against a Harrisburg OD by a patient that sued him because he sold the man/woman a pair of CR39's without UV and the guy blamed that on his getting cataracts and the guy supposedly won? My lab guy was telling me this and said because of this suit that a couple of places would only sell CR39 with UV because of liability issues.

[k12311997]

Has anyone in PA heard of a lawsuit that was against a Harrisburg OD by a patient that sued him because he sold the man/woman a pair of CR39's without UV and the guy blamed that on his getting cataracts and the guy supposedly won? My lab guy was telling me this and said because of this suit that a couple of places would only sell CR39 with UV because of liability issues.

I haven't heard anything about it but I wouldn't be suprised in this crazy world. This could be the greatest marketing ploy for plano UV clear glasses

[cocoisland58]

How is this possible? It takes years of UV exposure for cataracts to form. This guy was somehow protected his whole life except for the year or two he wore this doctors lenses? Give me a break. Was this case settled out of court to make this idiot go away or did it actually go to trial and waste everyone's time?

[tmorse]

Has anyone in PA heard of a lawsuit that was against a Harrisburg OD by a patient that sued him because he sold the man/woman a pair of CR39's without UV and the guy blamed that on his getting cataracts and the guy supposedly won? My lab guy was telling me this and said because of this suit that a couple of places would only sell CR39 with UV because of liability issues.

I doubt this lawsuit prevailed since the patient would have had extreme trouble proving causation, a necessary condition for judgement. Experts would be called to say the clear CR39 already blocks about 60% of UV radiation , and there are plenty of persons wearing same without similar effect.

This is probably a marketing ploy to sell UV.:cheers:

[chip anderson]

You must remember this is the state where a man bought a ladder to paint his barn. It wasn't tall enough so he put it on a pile of frozen manure.
The sun heated the ladder, the manure got slick and he fell. He sued the ladder company and got $300,000. Ladder company was ordered to put a warning label on in the future explaining the dangers of aluminum ladders and manure.

Turkey may get money for the cataracs even though this is a "theory" not a medical fact.

Chip

[DragonLensmanWV]

You must remember this is the state where a man bought a ladder to paint his barn. It wasn't tall enough so he put it on a pile of frozen manure.
The sun heated the ladder, the manure got slick and he fell. He sued the ladder company and got $300,000. Ladder company was ordered to put a warning label on in the future explaining the dangers of aluminum ladders and manure.

Turkey may get money for the cataracs even though this is a "theory" not a medical fact.

Chip

That's right:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/LB11.html

Frivolous lawsuits are ruining the country.
What do you call a thousand dead lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A pretty good start.:D

[AutumN]

My rep's understanding was that they got a jury to buy it. The whole thing blows my mind, but IF it did go to trial and a jury went with it, then a precedent has been set. Then I'd think we should look at it like the poly duty to warn deal or am I just being paranoid?

[Barry Santini]

Has anyone in PA heard of a lawsuit that was against a Harrisburg OD by a patient that sued him because he sold the man/woman a pair of CR39's without UV and the guy blamed that on his getting cataracts and the guy supposedly won? My lab guy was telling me this and said because of this suit that a couple of places would only sell CR39 with UV because of liability issues.

And I gues there now is the possibility of a large, class-action suit from the 10's of miilions of other americans who are "plano" emmetropes...for the same reason...they don't get no UV block indoors either...

What total Nonsense!

Barry

[Barry Santini]

Experts would be called to say the clear CR39 already blocks about 60% of UV radiation .:cheers:

Only 60% for CR-39??? Last time I looked, and using ANSI standards (*the* accepted standard, yes?), CR-39 blocked at least 92%.

Barry

[Johns]

I'd like to see the evidence from the sales rep that's using this creative yarn to enhance his sale of polys...
;)

[drk]

Only 60% for CR-39??? Last time I looked, and using ANSI standards (*the* accepted standard, yes?), CR-39 blocked at least 92%.

Barry

I think that's with tint, Bar-o.

[jeffsoptical]

Only 60% for CR-39??? Last time I looked, and using ANSI standards (*the* accepted standard, yes?), CR-39 blocked at least 92%.

Barry

I think you meant the light transmission of 92% for CR-39. I believe around 60% uv transmission for most CR-39.:cheers:

[jeffsoptical]

I uv all CR-39 because of all the hype most doc's stress to their patients.

What percent of uv gets to the human eye when the patient is wearing a frame with a B measurement of 20mm and their lenses block 99% uv(LOL).

[Barry Santini]

I think you meant the light transmission of 92% for CR-39. I believe around 60% uv transmission for most CR-39.:cheers:

Actually....no. I have printed charts from both Essilor and Sola that state that their CR39 material lenses, in compliance with measurement using ANSI standards, were certified to block 92% of UVA & UVB (mean transmittance) at 380NM.

My own measurements on CR-39 with my certified Humphrey spectrometer regularly come within 5% of this threshold

The UV-Block game, esp when it comes to any type of non-glass lens, is, IMHO, very overblown, or at a minimum, misunderstood.

Its a whole new ball game, however, when the upper limit is raised to 400NM.

FWIW

Barry

[a/r girl]

Well, I am from PA and have worked in Harrisburg and York. I was harassed via the phone by a customer who was also a lobbyist at the Capitol in Harrisburg because I wouldn't change something (which I do not recall) but it would have been an ethical issue. I stuck by my guns...but it is tough...AND then..YORK...people are just not very nice. Tough crowd...Don't get me wrong PA is beautiful, I love it. You just need to know what you are dealing with :)

[chip anderson]

Just think what will happen when they start sueing about soft lenses having increased thier myopia (which does have a good bit of truth to it).

Chip:cheers:

[tmorse]

Actually....no. I have printed charts from both Essilor and Sola that state that their CR39 material lenses, in compliance with measurement using ANSI standards, were certified to block 92% of UVA & UVB (mean transmittance) at 380NM.

My own measurements on CR-39 with my certified Humphrey spectrometer regularly come within 5% of this threshold

The UV-Block game, esp when it comes to any type of non-glass lens, is, IMHO, very overblown, or at a minimum, misunderstood.

Its a whole new ball game, however, when the upper limit is raised to 400NM.

Barry

I think we need Darryl's take on this one.:)

[MarcE]

I uv all CR-39 because of all the hype most doc's stress to their patients.

By the time you add UV, why not just sell poly? We almost never have a problem with the patient paying for it. No additional work, added benefits.

[eyegrrl]

By the time you add UV, why not just sell poly? We almost never have a problem with the patient paying for it. No additional work, added benefits.

HEAR HEAR!!! I sell about 98% poly, and present it just as you have said, why add a coating when poly has the benefit already!