CT Jury Clears Doctor in Eye Surgery Malpractice Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
The case of Dirgo v. Chin began with an eye surgery that left the patient with lasting complications. On February 26, 2019, Michael Dirgo of Ellington went to Ratchford Eye Center in Berlin, Connecticut, for a procedure called a laser iridotomy. The surgery was performed by ophthalmologist Dr. Daniel W. Chin, who was then practicing at the Eye Center.
A laser iridotomy is a common treatment used to relieve pressure in the eye by creating a small opening in the iris. Dirgo expected the surgery would improve his eye health and preserve his vision. Instead, he began to suffer light sensitivity, glare, halos, and headaches almost immediately afterward. Despite repeated follow-up visits, his symptoms continued for years. By 2022, he sought a second opinion at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital, where he was told the procedure had been performed incorrectly.
Dirgo filed his lawsuit in April 2023, naming both Dr. Chin and Ratchford Eye Center as Defendants. He claimed medical negligence and asked for compensation for his injuries. The case moved through pleadings, discovery, and expert reviews before reaching trial in July 2025.
Cause
Dirgo’s complaint pressed two main counts: medical negligence against Dr. Chin and vicarious liability against Ratchford Eye Center.
Negligence by Dr. Chin
Dirgo claimed that Dr. Chin deviated from the accepted standard of care while performing the laser iridotomy. He alleged that Chin failed to administer preoperative medication to reduce the size of the pupil, used excessive laser energy, delivered too many laser shots, and placed the hole in the wrong location. According to Dirgo, these errors created a larger-than-necessary opening in the iris at a visible location, which allowed light to pass through and caused permanent visual disturbances.
Liability of Ratchford Eye Center
Dirgo also argued that Ratchford Eye Center should be held responsible for Dr. Chin’s negligence, since Chin was its employee and agent.
The defense denied the claims and argued that Dr. Chin had acted within the standard of care and that any continuing issues were either unavoidable side effects or not caused by the procedure.
Injury
Following the 2019 procedure, Dirgo experienced constant visual disturbances. His symptoms included glare, halos, and sensitivity to light, which worsened when driving at night or working in bright environments. He reported frequent headaches, impaired ability to work, reduced quality of life, and emotional distress.
Doctors confirmed that his condition interfered with daily activities and that he would likely suffer these symptoms permanently. His ability to drive safely and work efficiently was diminished, and he required ongoing medical consultations and treatment.
Damages
Dirgo sought damages for:
Economic losses, including medical bills for the procedure, post-operative visits, medications, and consultations with specialists. He also cited future medical costs and loss of earning capacity.
Non-economic losses, including pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
He demanded an amount exceeding $15,000, the jurisdictional minimum for the Superior Court, but the full scope of damages sought was far greater.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Michael Dirgo
Counsel for Plaintiff: Leslie Gold McPadden | Nadim Tarabishy
Experts for Plaintiff: Scott Greenbaum | Ron Margolis | David MacDonald | David S Friedman
Defendants: Daniel W. Chin | Ratchford Eye Center, LLC
Counsel for Defendants: David J. Robertson | Christopher L. Wagner
Experts for Defendants: Peter Libre
Claims
Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Dr. Chin failed to meet the basic standards expected of a reasonably careful ophthalmologist. They stressed that Chin had not administered Pilocarpine, a medication used to reduce pupil size before an iridotomy, which would have allowed a smaller, safer opening. They also argued that Chin fired too many laser shots at too high an intensity and that he placed the hole at the 9:30 position in the iris, an area not shielded by the eyelid, making glare and halos inevitable.
Counsel highlighted Dirgo’s ongoing symptoms, his struggles at work, and the permanent nature of his injuries. They insisted that both Dr. Chin and Ratchford Eye Center should be held accountable for the harm caused.
Defense
Defense attorneys countered that Dr. Chin followed accepted medical practices and that laser iridotomy always carried risks of visual disturbances. They argued that Dirgo’s symptoms could not be definitively tied to negligence and that his outcome fell within known complications of the procedure. They also raised the statute of limitations as a defense, claiming the lawsuit was filed too late.
The defense maintained that Dirgo’s injuries were unfortunate but not the result of malpractice.
Jury Verdict
After hearing all testimony and arguments, the jury reached its decision on July 30, 2025. The panel returned a verdict for the Defendants, Dr. Daniel W. Chin and Ratchford Eye Center, LLC.
The jury found that Dirgo did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Chin’s conduct fell below the standard of care or that any alleged negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries. As a result, Dirgo received no damages.
Court Documents