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:

•
failure to obtain informed consent
•
breast enlargement and reduction
•
facelifts (ryhtidectomy)
•
eyelid surgery (blepharoplasty)
•
botox and dermal filler treatment
•
nose reshaping (rhinoplasty)
•
ear reshaping (otoplasty)
•
brow lifts
•
laser skin resurfacing
•
cosmetic dentistry
•
tummy tucks or gastric band surgery
•
liposuction
•
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.

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Navigating insurance payment deductions in PI claims

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: There are certain exceptions to the general principle that there must be no double recovery for a claimant in respect of benefits flowing as a result of an accident. The less commonly encountered ‘insurance’ and ‘benevolence’ exceptions are discussed in this article, along with the most recent judicial treatment of them in the case of Boyd v Hughes. Written by Georgina Crawford, barrister at Ropewalk Chambers.

Breaching a court embargo on a draft judgment leads to contempt finding but no further punishment (R (Glaister and Carr) v Assistant Coroner for North Wales)

Dispute Resolution analysis: a solicitor and publicity and media manager at a large law firm have been found to be in contempt of court following the disclosure of an embargoed judgment to members of the press prior to being handed down. The contempt enquiry itself was found to have provided a significant learning experience for the deeply apologetic individuals and no further punishment was imposed. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Court dismisses the defendant’s request for approval of settlement against the claimant’s wishes (Forsyth v Howson)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Her Honour Judge Claire Evans (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the defendant’s application to approve the settlement. The court examined the principles of litigation and financial capacity, referencing caselaw such as Dunhill v Burgin and Coles v Perfect to determine the appropriateness of invoking the inherent jurisdiction. This case is unlike any other reported case in this area because the request for approval of the settlement was not made or supported by the claimant’s legal representatives. Written by Amy Rollings, barrister at Nine Chambers.

Funders roiled as slow cases, paccar dull demand

Law360, London: Litigation-funders are grappling with an apparent existential crisis amid uncertain macroeconomic conditions and regulatory pressures in the UK, compelling some to revamp their business models in pursuit of fresh capital for investment in cases.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News