Cosmetic surgery claims

Guidance for doctors who offer cosmetic interventions, published by the General Medical Council in 2016, describes cosmetic interventions as ‘…any intervention, procedure or treatment carried out with the primary objective of changing an aspect of a patient’s physical appearance. This includes surgical and non-surgical procedures, both invasive and non-invasive’.

In recent years there has been an explosion of cosmetic surgery procedures; this growth has been partly contributed to by online discounts. With this increase in procedures comes the potential for things to go wrong.

Examples of common types of claim are:

  1. failure to obtain informed consent

  2. breast enlargement and reduction

  3. facelifts (ryhtidectomy)

  4. eyelid surgery (blepharoplasty)

  5. botox and dermal filler treatment

  6. nose reshaping (rhinoplasty) 

  7. ear reshaping (otoplasty)

  8. brow lifts

  9. laser skin resurfacing 

  10. cosmetic dentistry

  11. tummy tucks or gastric band surgery

  12. liposuction

  13. other complications of surgery, such as damage to nerves, arteries and organs

Cosmetic surgery claims are treated as if they are clinical negligence claims and, in practice, run as such.

A

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents