The plaintiff underwent LASIK surgery for decreasing vision. He claimed that he never consented to undergo the procedure in order to achieve monovision (one eye for near and one eye for far). Because he claimed that he did not consent to undergo any procedure with the desired effect of monovision, the defendant engaged in both medical negligence and battery, the latter of which was not a covered claim under his malpractice insurance. Plaintiff asked for $2 million in closing argument (as battery claims are not subject Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). Despite the absence of informed consent documentation, evidence of altered and/or late charting, and evidence that the patient’s resulting monovision condition was permanent and not correctable, a 12-0 defense verdict was obtained.