Houston man sues CVS pharmacy, claiming loss of vision from wrong prescription


HOUSTON – A 65-year-old Houston man claims he lost vision in one eye after a CVS pharmacist mistakenly filled his prescription for eye drops with ear medication.

Claudis Alston filed a lawsuit against CVSCareMark Corp Tuesday. His attorney says Alston was given a prescription in June 2012 for eye drops to treat a case of pink eye. He had the prescription filled at the CVS pharmacy at 12601 Tomball Parkway.

Attorney Randall Sorrels says when Alston took the medicine home and applied it to his eye as directed on the label filled out by the pharmacy, his eye became irritated and painful.

"The eye drops were indeed ear drops," Sorrels said. "And those ear drops in his eyes caused him permanent anatomical injury and loss of vision in his left eye."

Sorrels says it appears the pharmacist gave Alston an ear medication with a name similar to the eye medicine that was prescribed by Alston's doctor. The label on the box instructs Alston to apply three drops in each eye twice daily. However, just above that, wording identifies the contents of the box as an ear solution.

Alston's friend and legal guardian, Jameena Crookshank, says the loss of vision in his left eye has caused Alston's overall physical condition to deteriorate.

"He used to be fully capable of operating day to day on his own," Crookshank said. "Now he looks to me to support him in everything that he does."

Alston has spent most of his adult life in prison or on parole for theft or drug convictions going back to 1967. But his attorney says the mixup in medications is well documented.

"We have the documents in their writing, with their instructions that he followed," Sorrels said.

He says state law limits the amount Alston can be awarded if the lawsuit is successful at no more than $250,000. He said CVS has not responded to a letter sent two months ago.

On Thursday, CVS spokesman Michael DeAngelis responded to Local 2 News by email saying, "As this matter involves pending litigation, we are unable to comment."