Glenn Hagele filed a frivolous SLAPP lawsuit against Dr. Lauranell Burch in an ongoing campaign of harassment of LASIK patients.  Her counter-lawsuit against Glenn Hagele states the following:

CRSQA/USAEyes and Hagele are engaged in the business of promoting the LASIK industry and, among other things, criticizing, harassing, and intimidating those who wish to speak publicly about the risks of the LASIK procedure and about negative outcomes experienced by some LASIK patients.

In particular, Hagele has criticized and harassed many people who have attempted to raise concerns about LASIK surgery on the Internet. He has also harassed people who have attempted to establish websites and other forums for patients for patients to discuss LASIK surgery and share concerns about the surgical procedure.

CRSQA/USAEyes and Hagele and the activities they engage in are subsidized by LASIK surgeons who have a direct pecuniary interest in increasing the number of persons choosing the LASIK procedure. Thus, those LASIK surgeons--and their agents CRSQA/USAEyes and Hagele--have a direct pecuniary interest in silencing those who would speak publicly about the risks of the LASIK procedure and about negative outcomes experienced by some LASIK patients.

Upon information and belief, the actions taken by Hagele, as alleged herein, have been undertaken at the direction of and/or with the express or tacit authorization or ratification of CRSQA/USAEyes and the LASIK surgeons who subsidize CRSQA/USAEyes and Hagele.

The court subsequently ordered CRSQA members to be added as defendants to Dr. Lauranell Burch's counter-lawsuit against Glenn Hagele.

Glenn Hagele and CRSQA filed a complaint against Brent Hanson in an attempt to shut down USAEyes.us.  The response states that:

Complainant claims to be “a nonprofit nongovernmental Lasik patient advocacy providing patient related services including, but not limited to, physician certification, physician information, patient advocacy, consumer alert, and dissemination of health related information.” 

However, complainant’s organization actually engages in organized crime by issuing fraudulent “certifications” to laser eye surgeons; publishing claims to represent surgeons who are not affiliated with his organization; submitting fraudulent reports to government agencies; engaging in extortion of credit unions; and engaging in criminal harassment of consumers who complain about bad outcomes of laser eye surgery on internet bulletin boards. A full compendium of complainant’s criminal activities cannot be included in this response, as Supplemental Rule 5(a) limits the size of this document to 10 pp.However, illustrative samples of complainant’s fraudulent and criminal activities are provided below, with references to external exhibits that contain published statements and videotaped depositions of complainant.

View the exhibits for the response here.