The Dello Russo Laser Vision lawsuits are a series of medical malpractice actions filed over more than thirty years against the New York–New Jersey refractive surgery practice and its founder, Dr. Joseph Dello Russo, with later claims also naming his son, Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo. The most significant group of cases involved sixteen former patients whose damages went to binding arbitration and produced awards totaling a reported $15.3 million, though a New Jersey appellate court later reversed the insurance ruling that had required the practice’s carrier to pay. Individual cases have settled for as much as $2.1 million, while separate malpractice claims against the younger Dello Russo have been dismissed on appeal.
The Sixteen-Patient Case and the $15.3 Million Arbitration
The largest wave of litigation began in 1991, when sixteen former patients of Dr. Joseph Dello Russo sued the New Jersey Eye Center in Bergenfield, alleging permanent injuries from procedures performed there.1Insurance Journal. New Jersey Eye Surgeon Malpractice Claims Attorney Bruce Nagel of Nagel Rice represented eight of the sixteen and became the central plaintiffs’ lawyer in the dispute.2vlex. Russo v. Nagel, 817 A.2d 426
Rather than try the malpractice claims to a jury, the parties reached a settlement on March 11, 2004. Dr. Dello Russo and the New Jersey Eye Center waived any right to contest liability, and damages were submitted to binding arbitration before a retired Superior Court judge. The patients agreed not to touch Dello Russo’s personal assets and to look only to his insurance carriers for recovery.3FindLaw. New Jersey Eye Center v. Princeton Insurance Company
The arbitrator issued individual awards ranging from $170,000 to $3,000,000.3FindLaw. New Jersey Eye Center v. Princeton Insurance Company Interstate Insurance Co., Dello Russo’s personal malpractice carrier, agreed to pay up to its $3 million policy limit.4Mazie Slater. $15.3 Million Verdict Against Insurance Company Princeton Insurance Co., which insured the Eye Center, refused to honor the settlement and called the arbitration unfair. In a declaratory judgment action, Superior Court Judge Lawrence Smith ruled the arbitration was fair and ordered Princeton to cover the claims up to its policy limit. Reported figures put the combined total at $15.3 million. The judge also imposed a gag order on the lawyers.1Insurance Journal. New Jersey Eye Surgeon Malpractice Claims
Princeton appealed. In 2007, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial court and sent the case back for further proceedings. The panel found that Princeton was not bound by the settlement because the insured parties had breached their duty to cooperate with the insurer and had assumed liabilities without the insurer’s consent.3FindLaw. New Jersey Eye Center v. Princeton Insurance Company
The Unlicensed-Doctor Allegations
A recurring theme in the group case was Dr. William T. Kellogg, who worked at the New Jersey Eye Center. The New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners had revoked Kellogg’s medical license in 1995 following accusations that included performing unnecessary surgery.5The New York Times. Eye Charts and Law Books Patients alleged that while Kellogg’s license was revoked, he was introduced to them as a doctor and provided follow-up care. Dr. Joseph Dello Russo said Kellogg worked only as a technician during that period and did not participate in surgeries or care decisions.6New York Post. Lawsuit Sets Sights on Popular Eye Doc Kellogg later regained his license and was working under a medical board–approved program in Dello Russo’s office by the time the litigation drew wide coverage.
Two of the sixteen, Joseph Macedo and Rose Mary Lesky, also brought claims under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, alleging Dello Russo had indicated patients would be treated by fully licensed doctors while providing follow-up through Kellogg. The trial court dismissed those Consumer Fraud Act claims, and appellate courts split on whether the statute reached Dello Russo’s radio advertisements.5The New York Times. Eye Charts and Law Books
The Dell’Ermo $2.1 Million Settlement
One of the individual named cases within the group involved James Dell’Ermo, a 47-year-old Bedminster, New Jersey resident who had LASIK performed by Dr. Joseph Dello Russo in 2000. Dell’Ermo’s suit alleged that Dello Russo failed to recognize he had steep corneas and was not a suitable candidate. The surgery caused ectasia in both eyes, a progressive condition that left him legally blind with vision worse than 20/400 and facing future corneal transplants in both eyes.7Laser Focus World. New Jersey Man Gets $2.1 Million in Lasik Lawsuit Settlement
The case settled out of court for $2.1 million. Dr. Dello Russo did not admit fault.7Laser Focus World. New Jersey Man Gets $2.1 Million in Lasik Lawsuit Settlement
The $1,019,000 Post-Op Follow-Up Settlement
In a separate matter, Bruce Nagel obtained a $1,019,000 settlement for a client who alleged a LASIK procedure at Dr. Joseph Dello Russo’s facility caused corneal wrinkling because of faulty post-operative follow-up by a physician the practice employed. Nagel’s firm described the outcome as “just the most recent in a series of successful litigations against Dr. Dello Russo.”8Nagel Rice LLP. Medical Malpractice Claim Eye Surgeon
Dello Russo’s Countersuit Against Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The fight between Dr. Joseph Dello Russo and Bruce Nagel spilled beyond the malpractice cases. Court records show that Dello Russo’s attorney at one point offered Nagel’s firm $2 million to stop pursuing future litigation against him, and the firm rejected the offer. Dello Russo then alleged that Nagel demanded $3 million from him personally, threatening to go to the media, hold a press conference, and run newspaper advertisements if he did not pay.2vlex. Russo v. Nagel, 817 A.2d 426
Dr. Dello Russo and his wife, Stephanie Dello Russo, sued Nagel and his firm for defamation, extortion, tortious interference with contract and business opportunity, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Much of the complaint focused on an August 2001 newspaper advertisement in which Nagel’s firm asked whether readers had been treated by Dr. Dello Russo or Dr. Kellogg and had “suffered a bad result from eye surgery,” offering free consultations. The trial court granted summary judgment for Nagel and dismissed the entire complaint. In March 2003, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the statements were not actionable, were protected by privilege, and did not state legally cognizable claims.2vlex. Russo v. Nagel, 817 A.2d 426
Cases Against Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo
The practice’s second generation has drawn its own malpractice filings, though the reported outcomes have gone the defendants’ way.
Barone v. Dello Russo Laser Vision
John C. Barone filed a New York medical malpractice action (Index No. 805159/12) arising from LASIK surgery. Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo and Laser Eye Practice of New York moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds, arguing that Barone’s last treatment was in September 2008 and that his June 2012 filing fell outside the two-and-a-half-year window for medical malpractice claims.
In January 2014, Justice Alice Schlesinger denied the motion to dismiss as to Jeffrey Dello Russo, finding open questions about whether Barone’s 2010 and 2011 visits for poor uncorrected vision, headaches, dry eyes, and eye strain amounted to a continuing course of treatment for post-LASIK ectasia, a condition that can be asymptomatic for a year or two. Claims against Dr. Joseph Dello Russo were dismissed as time-barred.9Casemine. Barone v. Dello Russo Laser Vision Med. Care PLLC
The case did not reach a jury. On May 3, 2016, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed and granted summary judgment to Jeffrey Dello Russo and Laser Eye Practice of New York. The panel found that Dello Russo had shown he had no involvement with Barone after performing initial corneal topographies, which Barone conceded were done properly. With no evidence linking Dello Russo to the later procedures alleged to have caused harm, the court dismissed the complaint and rejected vicarious liability against the practice.10FindLaw. Barone v. Dello Russo Laser Vision Med. Care PLLC
Clark v. Dello Russo
Nicole Clark sued Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo and other defendants after LASIK surgery on September 9, 2014. She developed post-surgical complications, sought treatment from Dr. Gregory J. Pamel on October 27, 2014, for suspected diffuse lamellar keratitis, and was diagnosed with infectious keratitis on December 1, 2014, by a different ophthalmologist.11New York Courts. Clark v. Dello Russo, Index No. 52111/17
A July 2020 jury trial found Dr. Pamel liable for malpractice for failing to culture Clark’s eye and returned a $790,000 judgment against him. In May 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed. The court noted that Clark’s own medical expert testified that Pamel’s failure to perform the culture was not a substantial factor in causing her complications, leaving no evidence of proximate cause, and dismissed the complaint against Pamel and his professional corporation.11New York Courts. Clark v. Dello Russo, Index No. 52111/17 The available court records do not disclose how the claims against Dr. Jeffrey Dello Russo were resolved in this case.
What the Claims Have Tended to Allege
Across the Dello Russo cases, two patterns dominate the pleadings: patient screening and post-operative care. The Dell’Ermo suit turned on an allegation that the surgeon failed to recognize steep corneas that made the patient unsuitable for LASIK. Proper LASIK screening involves evaluation of corneal thickness, curvature, and surface irregularities, along with a full medical history review — a process that should take roughly one to two hours.12American Refractive Surgery Council. LASIK Candidacy: The Complete Screening Guide Post-op follow-up was central to the $1,019,000 settlement and to the continuing-treatment question in Barone.
Informed consent is a separate legal theory that has driven refractive surgery litigation generally. A patient does not have to prove the surgery was performed incompetently, only that the surgeon failed to disclose material risks, that the patient would have declined the procedure if fully informed, and that the surgery was a substantial factor in causing injury. One study found improper informed consent was the leading cause of negligence findings in 30 percent of refractive surgery claims reviewed.13National Library of Medicine. Informed Consent in Ophthalmology