Thank you. I don't see bad faith here on anyone's part, and the discrepancy in medical observations is explainable. What more need be said? There's no issue here.
I think the problem is that the M.E. concluded that she was blind but did not mention the dehydration effect that may of caused it. As I more or less mentioned on another post, he was beyond his expertise in this area of dehydration and should of had a more experienced overseer in this situation. Bad faith has nothing to do with it, it is a science.