Jury Rules for Yale New Haven in Eye Misdiagnosis Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
This medical malpractice lawsuit arose from a series of clinical encounters beginning in October 2019. Alexander R. Sommers, a resident of North Haven, Connecticut, sought treatment for sudden visual impairments in his right eye. He initially reported seeing a small blue translucent dot, which quickly progressed into a larger shadow that he described as an "eclipse" blocking his field of vision.
Cause
Mr. Sommers alleged that his healthcare providers at Yale New Haven Health and the Yale Eye Center failed to timely and accurately diagnose a retinal detachment. On October 3, 2019, physicians examined his eye but ruled out a detached retina, diagnosing him instead with optic neuritis—a neurological condition. This initial misdiagnosis directed his care toward neurological testing, including brain MRIs and spinal taps, while the actual physical detachment in his eye remained unaddressed for over a week.
Injury
The delay in treating the retinal detachment allegedly caused permanent and disabling damage to Mr. Sommers’s retina and lens. By the time surgeons finally performed the reattachment surgery on October 12, 2019, the detachment had progressed significantly. Following the surgery, Sommers developed a severe infection known as acute endophthalmitis at the surgical site. Medical experts later concluded that he had contracted Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), leading to further complications and a grim long-term prognosis for his vision.
Damages Sought
Mr. Sommers sought compensation for the extensive medical expenses he incurred through multiple hospitalizations and surgeries. He also claimed damages for the loss of his vision, the physical pain and mental anguish he endured, and the permanent nature of his disability, which he argued could have been mitigated by timely intervention.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The legal battle focused on whether the medical team had deviated from the standard of care by pursuing a neurological diagnosis while ignoring signs of a physical eye injury.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Alexander R. Sommers
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): James J. Healy | Nyle K. Davey
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Daniel Londyn Menkes | Robert G. Josephberg
Defendant(s): Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation | Yale-New Haven Hospital | Inc | Yale University | Dr. Ron A. Adelman
Counsel for Defendant(s): Kevin S. Budge | Catherine Baiocchi
Experts for Defendant(s): Bruce Farber | Dean Eliott | Andrew Lee
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The attorneys focused on the window of time between the first symptoms and the eventual surgery.
Claims of Negligence
Sommers's counsel argued that the providers were negligent because they relied on a "differential diagnosis" of optic neuritis despite the patient's worsening symptoms of a physical detachment. They highlighted that staff had even discouraged Sommers from visiting the emergency department on October 4, telling him instead to wait for a follow-up appointment a week later. The Plaintiff contended that the cursory bedside evaluations performed during his hospital stay were insufficient to detect the true cause of his vision loss.
Defense Arguments
The Yale New Haven Defendants denied all allegations of negligence. They maintained that their physicians had acted appropriately based on the clinical information available at the time. In their legal answer, they asserted that Sommers’s care was within the acceptable standard and that they lacked sufficient information to confirm the exact nature of his long-term injuries.
Jury Verdict
On November 18, 2025, the jury reached a final decision. After considering the evidence regarding the timeline of the diagnosis and the complications that followed, the jury found in favor of the Defendants. The panel concluded that Yale New Haven Health Services Corp., Yale New Haven Hospital, and the individual physicians were not liable for medical malpractice. The jury foreperson, Erika Borrero, signed the verdict form, and the Court awarded no damages to the Plaintiff.