On July 14, 2010, plaintiff Vincent Lau, M.D., 76, a retired internist, underwent a YAG laser procedure to address his complaints of blurred vision. The procedure was performed by Dr. William Barnett, an ophthalmologist at Kaiser Permanente. Lau previously underwent cataract surgery on his left eye in June 2008 by Dr. Richard Alexandrakis, an ophthalmologist who previously worked for Kaiser but left to start a private practice. Nearly two years later, in May 2010, Lau returned to Kaiser with complaints of blurred vision and was seen by Barnett, since Alexandrakis left. Barnett subsequently prescribed eye drops to treat the condition, but Lau returned one month later with no reported improvement in his condition. Lau also scheduled a second opinion office visit with Alexandrakis, at his private practice, on June 2, 2010. Alexandrakis advised that a YAG laser procedure should be performed and when Lau returned to Bartlett, he asked about the procedure. Bartlett ultimately agreed to perform the YAG procedure on July 14, 2010. Within two days of the laser procedure, Lau complained that his vision was not better and that he was seeing floaters. Bartlett advised that temporary floaters were not unusual and that Lau would be re-evaluated at his first scheduled post-operative exam on July 28, 2010. At the first post-operative exam, Lau reported that his floaters had indeed resolved, but that his vision had become distorted in that straight lines appeared curved, which was potentially indicative of a condition involving the retina, such as macular edema and/or macular pucker. However, Bartlett stated that he would follow up with Lau in six months. As a result, Lau scheduled another visit with Alexandrakis on Aug. 5, 2010, during which the ophthalmologist diagnosed macular pucker and macular edema. Alexandrakis also referred Lau to a retinal specialist for a second opinion. The specialist also concluded that Lau did indeed have macular pucker and referred him to a retinal specialist at UCLA. However, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. would not approve the referral, since the second retinal specialist was employed by the Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Los Angeles. As a result, Lau decided to opt out of the Kaiser coverage and obtained private health coverage. Lau ultimately made an appointment and evaluation with the UCLA retinal specialist in late September 2010, and a surgical approach was recommended to assist with Lau’s distorted vision. Thus, on Jan. 14, 2011, Lau underwent a vitrectomy and membrane peel, and experienced some improvement in his distortion, but also developed a cataract in the right eye. Lau sued Bartlett, as well as Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. and Southern California Permanente Medical Group. He alleged that Bartlett failed to properly perform the YAG laser procedure and properly treat him after the procedure. He contended that these failures constituted medical malpractice. Lau also alleged that Kaiser Foundation Health Plain and Southern California Permanente were liable on respondeat superior. The matter subsequently proceeded to arbitration at JAMS. Lau’s counsel presented the testimony of Alexandrakis, who claimed that he reviewed the YAG operative note and determined that Bartlett used an excessive number of laser energy applications (51) in doing the procedure. Alexandrakis also claimed that Bartlett made the opening in Lau’s posterior capsule too large, causing the plaintiff to experience macular pucker and macular edema. Lau’s counsel also presented a December 2010 e-mail, in which Alexandrakis maintained that Bartlett violated the standard of care by failing to provide topical steroid eye drops following the YAG laser procedure on July 14, 2010, since eye drops would have prevented macular edema and/or macular pucker. Defense counsel contended that the amount of energy used by the YAG laser was within the standard of care and that Lau’s macular abnormalities predated the laser treatment. The two retinal specialists that examined Lau upon referral from Alexandrakis also testified as to the proper standard of care used by Bartlett., Lau claimed that his vision became distorted due to macular edema and macular pucker as a result of the YAG laser procedure. He eventually underwent a vitrectomy and membrane peel on Jan. 14, 2011. Lau claimed that although he experienced some improvement, he is left with a permanent distortion of vision in his left eye. He also has visual problems in the right eye due to a cataract that had developed, but he claimed that he cannot undergo surgery because he is afraid that if it is unsuccessful, he would be left with two bad eyes. Thus, Lau alleged that he can no longer go ballroom dancing or drive at night with the poor lighting due to his vision still being impaired. He also alleged that he experiences discomfort in his eyes from reading. Thus, Lau sought recovery of $275,000 in total damages, including approximately $10,000 in past medical costs. His wife, Lindy, also sought recovery of $235,000 in damages for her loss of consortium.