The Missed Corneal Ulcer and the Board Complaint
A patient returns three days after an exam with a 2-mm corneal infiltrate, a hypopyon, and visual acuity of 20/200. The record from the first visit says “contact lens overwear; artificial tears; return if worse.” It does not document visual acuity, slit-lamp findings, or a follow-up interval. The optometrist had seen the patient for a “red eye” and did not remove the contact lens. The patient files a board complaint alleging the optometrist “missed an infection.” The optometrist asks whether to add a late note explaining that the patient “was noncompliant” and to offer a refund in exchange for withdrawing the complaint.
1. Evaluate the standard-of-care and documentation issues.
Read the worked answer
A contact lens wearer with an acute red eye is at risk for microbial keratitis, so the standard of care requires a focused assessment: visual acuity, slit-lamp examination, fluorescein evaluation, assessment of infiltrate or epithelial defect, and a plan that includes lens removal, treatment or referral, and a defined follow-up interval. The record shows none of these. “Return if worse” shifts responsibility to the patient without a safety net and is especially weak when the patient is still wearing the lens. The later hypopyon and 20/200 acuity show why the initial presentation mattered. The board will not ask whether the optometrist intended harm; it will ask whether the process met the standard and whether the chart supports the care. The documentation gaps make the defense harder because the board may infer that the omitted tests were not performed. The patient’s noncompliance, if true, may be relevant to damages, but it does not excuse an inadequate initial workup.
2. How should the optometrist respond to the board and to the patient’s offer?
Read the worked answer
The optometrist should cooperate fully, provide the complete original record, and submit a written response that explains the care and any corrective steps. The record must not be altered. If a late entry is made, it must be clearly labeled as late, dated, factual, and non-blaming; it should not be inserted as if it were part of the original visit. The patient’s noncompliance should be documented only if it is factual and relevant, not as a substitute for the missing clinical assessment. Offering a refund in exchange for withdrawing a board complaint is improper: complaints are not contracts, and conditioning a refund on withdrawal can look like obstruction or inducement. The optometrist may apologize for the outcome, explain what happened, and offer to address the patient’s concerns, but should not buy silence. Realistic board responses include remedial education, practice monitoring, or discipline depending on the harm and prior history.