Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com has targeted several
doctors and his acts have been so out of
the realm of reason that he has been sentenced to jail
for them.
Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com is an individual who,
years before Glenn Hagele was involved in the refractive
surgery industry, had
LASIK and
PRK with a poor outcome. See
Brent Hanson of
LasikFraud.com History
Brent
Hanson is an extreme anti-LASIK
zealot and has created several defamatory websites to vilify the
procedure and many who are involved in the industry.
Unfortunately, Glenn Hagele is one of those who he has
decided to vilify.
Brent Hanson deliberately attempts to misrepresent facts
to create the appearance of problems where problems
do not exist. As an example, Brent Hanson has republished on his
website(s) the plaintiff's filing of a malpractice lawsuit
against a Lasik doctor, but Brent Hanson fails to mention that
all accusations were found to be without substance
and/or
that the defending doctor won the case.
The
following is an account of a history of Brent Hanson
of LasikFraud.com, taken from his websites, information
on several bulletin boards and newsgroups, comments
of those who know him, TLC Laser Vision Centers, and legal documents.
In
mid 1996 Brent Hanson, then a Dallas resident, had
Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK)
by a ophthalmologist affiliated with Beacon Eye
Institute. Brent Hanson's refractive error was
so extreme that his ophthalmologist took him to
Canada for surgery, where the doctor was also
licensed to practice medicine. Brent Hanson
subsequently had multiple enhancement surgeries
by the same doctor in an attempt to resolve
undesired results. From all accounts, the
surgeries provided substandard results.
Two
years after his Brent Hanson's initial surgery, TLC
Laser Vision Centers acquired the
Beacon Eye Institute. It was not long after
TLC purchased the practice that Brent' Hanson's doctor was no
longer affiliated with TLC.
TLC
acknowledged that Brent Hanson had a poor outcome
from the surgeon whose practice they had acquired
and agreed to help as they could and to the degree
that they believed they could improve his visual
acuity. Keep in mind, Brent Hanson was not originally
a TLC patient and did not have surgery by a TLC
affiliated doctor, but TLC agreed to provide follow-up
care.
This
is where we apply the term, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Exactly
which events caused Brent Hanson to turn his venom on
TLC is long lost in the competing rhetoric, but
both sides agree that TLC provided corrective surgery
for Brent Hanson in only one eye. Because of the type
of corrective surgery, TLC provided this surgery
in Canada and the surgery was performed by TLC's
national medical director.
Although Brent Hanson insisted that he should
have additional surgery on the other eye -
demanded it really - TLC's doctors did not
believe that any additional surgery would
improve Brent Hanson's visual ability and that the slight possibility
of an improvement was not worth the risk. It was
about this time that Brent Hanson went ballistic.
Brent Hanson
has continued to state that TLC will not honor its
"Lifetime Commitment" policy for him.
Glenn Hagele is a very strong
opponent of using terms like lifetime commitment
in marketing and believes it is not appropriate.
Nonetheless, Brent Hanson was not a TLC patient when he
had his surgery. The controversial TLC lifetime
commitment policy did not exist when Brent Hanson had
surgery. Even if Brent Hanson had surgery at a TLC
facility with a TLC doctor when the lifetime commitment
policy was active, Brent Hanson would not have qualified
anyway. TLC's lifetime commitment policy has never
directly applied to Brent Hanson, however that is not
all of the story.
One
of the big problems with Brent Hanson's situation is that
the company that owned the medical practice where
he had surgery also had a long-term commitment policy.
It is not clear whether or not Brent Hanson qualified
and was a recipient of the predecessor's long-term
commitment policy. When TLC acquired the practice
chain, they applied their own policy at their discretion.
Patients assumed, and arguably were led to believe,
that the policy at the previous company would be
honored by the new owner: TLC.
This is an example that "lifetime" in these kinds of commitments
is subject to interpretation. There is no way you
can advertise a lifetime commitment then try to
limit that commitment when the patient comes through
the door without trouble. Somebody will take exception.
When you muddy the waters with the takeover of another
practice with a similar policy, the problems are
compounded. It was inevitable that a Brent Hanson
was going to happen.
Brent Hanson
then used the SurgicalEyes' Internet bulletin board and the board
at Dr. Horn's website to rant and rave about the
perceived injustice. Of course, he then ranted and
raved at the perceived injustices perpetuated on
him by SurgicalEyes and Dr. Horn. Using multiple
aliases, Brent Hanson made many derogatory
comments about TLC, its doctors, and its
managment at the Yahoo! bulletin board for TLC
shareholders.
Brent Hanson
created several anti-refractive surgery, anti-TLC websites then proceeded to secure several website
domain addresses using the names of TLC
executives. A website at www.davideldridge.com
would have railing against the former TLC Executive
Vice President for clinical affairs.
TLC threatened to sue Brent Hanson and
eventually gained control of the offending
websites.
BTW,
Dr. Eldridge is a former trustee of the Council
for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance that
Glenn Hagele founded, so consider
the perceived bias.
In
late 2000, Brent Hanson had a corneal
transplant in one eye. Anyone who has had a corneal
transplant will be quick to tell you it does not
immediately restore vision. Recovery is very slow
and not often equal to vision on a virgin cornea.
Whether or not additional treatment can help his
other eye is a matter of conjecture. Brent Hanson may
seem to be a pain in the posterior on these newsgroups,
but he clearly didn't start this process with that
intent. Like every refractive surgery candidate
then and today, he just wanted life without glasses
or contacts. Unfortunately, he received poor care
an environment that spun out of control.
About early 2001 Glenn Hagele made this
information about Brent Hanson's difficulties
and misdirection of accusations public at
various Internet forums. Since that time Brent
Hanson has been on a rampage against Glenn
Hagele. Brent Hanson has made defamatory
statements against Glenn Hagele, has harassed
Lasik doctors associated with the organization
Glenn Hagele founded, has distributed multiple
defamatory emails to members of the ophthalmic
community with which Glenn Hagele needs to
maintain a working relationship, and even
published on his websites Glenn Hagele's
personal identity information including Social
Security number, bank account numbers, and
credit card numbers. Brent Hanson has recruited
others to attack Glenn Hagele in a similar
fashion, including making false accusations
against Glenn Hagele to local, state, and
federal authorities. These acts prompted Glenn
Hagele to sue Brent Hanson in California
Superior Court for defamation and invasion of
privacy.
It is Glenn Hagele's stated opinion that the saddest part about Brent Hanson's
history is that by taking aim at TLC and later
Glenn Hagele, the more important
story of his medical situation became lost. Of course,
Brent Hanson's doctor was gone and only TLC remained to
be blamed, but for refractive surgery candidates
who are considering LASIK, there is little that
they will learn from Brent Hanson's rhetoric that can
be applied to their circumstances - other than TLC
and LASIK have enemies.
If
you read between the anti-TLC lines, you will see
that in 1996 Brent Hanson should never have had refractive
surgery. He was a marginal candidate with the techniques
and technology at that time. So marginal, in fact,
that instead of having surgery in his native Dallas,
he had to have surgery outside the US in Canada.
By having the surgery miles away and in a foreign
country, Brent Hanson's options when things went bad were
limited. The transportation costs to Canada for
additional treatment were the patient's responsibility.
Legal recourse was severely limited. An American
citizen suing for medical malpractice in Canada
is not a very good scenario for the patient. Even
though the medical practice chain had a branch near
Brent Hanson's Texas home, it was the practice that decided
where he would get follow-up care.
Although
Brent Hanson's situation is one of an extreme, someone
considering refractive surgery should not think
that parts and pieces of what happened to Brent Hanson
couldn't happen to them. LASIK Candidates today
are subject to many of the same problems that
Brent Hanson
faced years ago. Technology and techniques have
limits, even if those limits are wider than when
Brent Hanson had surgery. Doctors' abilities vary greatly.
Going a long distance from home for care is probably
not wise and presents a major problem if something
goes wrong.
"Commitments"
are only as good as the willingness and ability
of the company who professes to provide them and
will last only as long as that company desires to
provide it. International surgery is subject to
laws and circumstances that are not always to the
benefit of the patient.
Brent Hanson's
attacks Glenn Hagele personally and the organization
he represents are not appreciated and are not
warranted. He uses tactics
that are often repugnant. That does not mean, however,
that he does not deserve empathy as someone who
has been put through the wringer. Even if the messenger
is distasteful, the message is important.
