Ophthalmology Malpractice Expert
In an ophthalmic malpractice matter, the central questions are almost always the same: what does the standard of care require, was it met, and if not, did the departure cause the claimed harm? Dr. Marc H. Shomer provides independent malpractice case review for both plaintiff and defense counsel, grounded in more than 13 years of medical-legal experience and an active comprehensive ophthalmology practice.
The three questions in every malpractice case
A rigorous ophthalmic malpractice review separates three distinct issues that are often conflated:
- Standard of care — what a reasonably careful ophthalmologist would have done under the same circumstances. This is a professional-practice question, not a hindsight question. See Standard-of-Care Expert.
- Causation — whether the alleged departure, rather than the underlying disease or a known complication, produced the injury. See Causation Expert.
- Damages — the extent and permanence of visual impairment, measured objectively. See Visual Disability Evaluation.
A complication is not, by itself, negligence. Every ophthalmic procedure carries recognized risks that can occur in careful hands. The analysis turns on whether the risk was appropriately disclosed, whether the complication was recognized and managed within the standard of care, and whether the outcome reflects a departure rather than a known hazard. An honest expert applies that framework in both directions — it screens out weak plaintiff theories and identifies genuinely defensible care, but it equally identifies departures that a defense theory cannot explain away.
Common allegation categories
- Cataract surgery: wrong intraocular lens or lens power, capsule rupture, retained fragments, endophthalmitis, and consent disputes
- LASIK and refractive surgery: patient selection, ectasia, and consent adequacy
- Delayed diagnosis of retinal detachment or other retinal disease
- Glaucoma: monitoring adequacy and missed progression
- Missed neuro-ophthalmic emergencies, medication errors, and postoperative infection management
What a preliminary review provides
Before either side invests heavily, a screening review of the key records can indicate whether the ophthalmic evidence plausibly supports the theory of the case — and just as importantly, where its weaknesses lie. Dr. Shomer provides candid preliminary assessments; a case that should not proceed is better identified early. When a full engagement follows, the work product includes complete record review, a clinical chronology, and, when requested, a written report suitable for the applicable disclosure requirements.
Records that matter most
Malpractice review requires the complete treating chart, not excerpts: clinic notes, operative and anesthesia records, biometry and diagnostic printouts, imaging in native digital format, consent documents, phone logs, and referral correspondence. The page What Records to Provide details why native-format imaging in particular can decide these cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Dr. Shomer review malpractice cases for both sides?
Yes. He accepts carefully selected plaintiff and defense engagements. The methodology is identical in either posture, and prior engagement for one side in one matter implies no allegiance in another.
Will he tell counsel if the case is weak?
Yes — early and directly. A candid preliminary assessment protects counsel from investing in a theory the medical evidence will not support, and it is a routine part of his screening review.
What is needed for a preliminary opinion?
Typically the core treating records, any operative notes, and key diagnostic studies, together with a statement of the specific questions presented. A preliminary view can often be given without a complete record, with clear caveats about what remains unreviewed.
Does he write affidavits or declarations of merit?
Where jurisdiction rules require pre-suit expert declarations, that work can be discussed during engagement. Whether the evidence supports such a declaration is determined only after review.
Educational information only. This page provides general information for attorneys and other medical-legal professionals. It is not medical or legal advice, does not address any particular case, and does not create a physician-patient, attorney-client, or expert-client relationship. Opinions in any matter are formed only after review of the specific records, examination findings, and applicable literature. Past engagements do not guarantee any result.
Board-certified ophthalmologist; Adjunct Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine of USC; active California Qualified Medical Evaluator. Full biography · Curriculum vitae
Published August 2, 2026 · Last substantive review August 2, 2026 · Medical reviewer: Marc H. Shomer, MD, PhD, QME
Request a Conflict Check and Case Review
Submit the matter for conflict screening. Please do not send medical records or protected health information until conflicts are cleared and secure transfer instructions are provided.