On Feb. 20, 2009, plaintiff Edward Dawson, 63, an electronics salesman, underwent cataract surgery on his right eye by Dr. Robert Innocenzi, an ophthalmologist. Innocenzi previously performed a successful cataract surgery on Dawson’s left eye. As a result, Dawson returned to Innocenzi in March 2006 for treatment of a cataract in his right eye and ultimately required surgery on his right eye in February 2009. Five days after the surgery, Dawson’s vision suddenly declined. Innocenzi, who had been monitoring Dawson post-operatively, increased the prescribed dosage of Pred Forte eye drops, a corticosteroid. He changed the prescription from one drop every four hours, to one drop per hour for 12 days. He then instructed Dawson to administer one drop every three hours for five days. However, on Friday, March 13, 2009, Dawson called Innocenzi’s office complaining of severe pain, swelling and vision problems in his right eye. Innocenzi had left early that day, and his receptionist did not page him. Instead, the receptionist suggested that Dawson come in Saturday morning during clinic hours. Upon seeing Dawson Saturday morning, Innocenzi knew without any examination that Dawson was suffering a severe right eye infection (endophthalmitis) and emergently referred Dawson to a retina specialist. Upon examination Saturday morning, the retina specialist diagnosed Dawson with acute bacterial endophthalmitis and performed an emergency vitrectomy, which is the surgical removal of the vitreous gel from the middle of an eye. Shortly thereafter, the right eye became shrunken (phthisical) and Dawson lost all vision in his right eye. Dawson sued Innocenzi and his medical practice, Robert Innocenzi D.O. Inc. Dawson alleged that Innocenzi was negligent in the change of the eye drops’ prescription and that Innocenzi and his officer were negligent in failing to timely examine and/or treat his eye infection. He also alleged that the defendants’ negligence constituted medical malpractice. Innocenzi’s practice was ultimately dismissed at trial. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Innocenzi’s admittedly “aggressive” prescription of the Pred Forte, corticosteroid eye drops was below the standard of care and had three side effects, including depressing the immune system response in the eye, delaying wound healing, and masking the presence of an infection. Thus, counsel contended that the aggressive prescription of the eye drops caused the acute bacterial endophthalmitis. Further, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Dawson’s complaints during his phone call to Innocenzi’s office on March 13, 2009, required emergency examination by Innocenzi or a covering ophthalmologist during Innocenzi’s absence. Counsel asserted that this delay of examination until the next morning caused the loss of Dawson’s vision. Defense counsel contended that Innocenzi’s post-operative prescription of Pred Forte to Dawson was appropriate at each stage. Counsel also contended that all of the treatment rendered by Innocenzi was within the standard of care and that Innocenzi timely diagnosed Dawson’s condition, as well as referred Dawson immediately to a specialist., Dawson was diagnosed with acute bacterial endophthalmitis, requiring an emergency vitrectomy. He is now left with a prephthisical globe and has lost all vision in his right eye. Although it was recommended, Dawson opted not to be fitted for a prosthetic eye. Thus, Dawson sought recovery of $250,000 in general damages. The parties stipulated to Dawson’s loss of earnings. Defense counsel contended that once the infection set in on March 13, 2009, Dawson’s were irreversible, regardless of when Innocenzi examined Dawson after the phone call to his office.