On April 4, 2014, plaintiff Sharon Fratilla, 71, underwent surgery to correct her ptosis, which is when the upper eyelid droops over the eye. The surgery was performed by an ophthalmic surgeon, Dr. David Wirta at the Newport Bay Surgery Center, in Newport Beach. Fratilla suffered from severe ptosis, which started to interfere with her vision. As a result, her regular ophthalmologist referred her to Wirta for treatment. Fratilla first saw Wirta on March 24, 2014, at which time it was allegedly noted that Fratilla had a history of dry eyes. Wirta performed a slit lamp examination and confirmed that the dry eye condition was due to superficial punctate keratitis, an eye disorder caused by the death of small groups of cells on the surface of the cornea. As a result, Wirta recommended upper eyelid surgery, which would be performed in a conservative manner to minimize the risk of exacerbating Fratilla’s pre-existing dry eyes. However, Fratilla denied that she had significant, pre-existing dry eyes or that the issue was ever discussed with her prior to surgery. The surgical correction of Fratilla’s ptosis was performed on April 4, 2014. The procedure was without immediate, apparent complication, but Fratilla contended that she required pain medication within 24 hours of surgery due to severe eye pain. When Wirta removed the sutures 10 days later, on April 14, 2014, Fratilla’s left eyelid was noted to be higher than the right eyelid, and a left corneal exam revealed increased superficial punctate keratitis on that side. Fratilla then returned to her regular ophthalmologist on May 2, 2014, complaining of severe dry eyes and decreased visual acuity, and she ultimately required additional surgery. Fratilla sued Wirta and his medical office, Aesthetic Eye Care Institute. Fratilla alleged that Wirta was negligent in the performance of the upper eyelid repair surgery and that this negligence constituted medical malpractice. She also alleged that Aesthetic Eye Care Institute was liable for Wirta’s actions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that it was below the standard of care to have performed upper eyelid repair surgery in the face of known superficial punctate keratitis because of the greatly increased risk of worsening dry eye syndrome. Counsel also contended that the decision to perform the surgery directly led to Fratilla’s decompensating left cornea, loss of visual acuity, and painful persistent dry eyes. Defense counsel contended that it was perfectly within the standard of care to perform upper eyelid repair surgery in the presence of superficial punctate keratitis, as long as the procedure was performed in a conservative manner to minimize the risk of worsening dry eyes. Counsel also contended that, unfortunately, in this instance, the procedure unmasked a pre-existing, undiagnosed neurotrophic cornea, which then decompensated, despite aggressive and appropriate medical care by Wirta., Fratilla complained that she lost significant amounts of visual acuity in her left eye as a result of the upper eyelid repair surgery, and was plagued by persistent and painful dry eye syndrome in the left eye. When the sutures were removed 10 days after the surgery, Fratilla’s left eyelid was noted to be higher than the right eyelid, and a left corneal exam revealed increased superficial punctate keratitis on that side. Fratilla then returned to her regular ophthalmologist with complaints of severe dry eyes and decreased visual acuity. As a result, her regular ophthalmologist was referred back to Wirta to address her problems, and lower intracanalicular plugs, a type of tear duct plug, were placed by on May 12, 2014. However, four days later Fratilla’s regular ophthalmologist contacted Wirta, urging him to consider a temporary suture tarsorrhaphy, a surgical procedure in which the eyelids are partially sewn together to narrow the eyelid opening. The procedure was ultimately performed on May 23, 2014, along with a reversal of the prior, left, upper eyelid repair. The tarsorrhaphy procedure was then repeated on June 12, 2014, and the suture tarsorrhaphy remained in place until July 2014. Fratilla then discontinued care with Wirta. Fratilla claimed that she didn’t recover vision in her left eye until her treating optometrist fitted her with a corneal implant. However, she claimed she lost significant amounts of visual acuity in her left eye and now suffers from persistent and painful dry eye syndrome in the left eye. Fratilla alleged that as a result, she suffered a significant loss of enjoyment of life and a loss of her ability to continue her employment. Thus, Fratilla sought recovery of approximately $75,000 in economic damages and an unspecified amount of damages for her past and future pain and suffering.