Medical Negligence lawyers win $XY for a 42-year-old woman who sustained facial scarring in a plastic surgery procedure.
The plaintiff had a consultation for Blepharoplasty and during that consultation, the surgeon did not mention the possibility of scarring. He continued to show visuals of patients in their before and after state of previous patients. Not one of the examples shows any facial scarring after the procedure. The surgeon states she will achieve the same results.
The plaintiff decides to continue with the procedure and finds her wounds swollen and red by the end of the process. The client was in continuous pain and was sent home to rest. After a few days, the client’s wounds opened, and she immediately returned to the clinic.
The client had eventually returned to the private clinic for corrective treatments. In total the client saw the defendant 8 times for corrective treatments and 1 of those 8 times was corrective surgery. After these treatments, the client’s eyelids have large dark scars above her eyelids, along with a hard mass that has formed near the scarring. Both scars are raised and are very noticeable on the client’s fair skin in contrast. The client had lost her confidence and fell into depression.
The client’s life had changed according to her injuries. The client has transferred her call centre job to allow her to work from home. The client depression has given her anxiety to be around her colleagues physically, however, the depression still allowed the client to speak on the phone comfortably. The client is only comfortably able to speak to those who cannot see her.
The client had a social lifestyle and travelled often with friends and family. The 2 years the client has suffered these injuries she has not travelled since. Though her family had a holiday already scheduled and had attended without the client.
It was found that the defendant was liable as it was his duty of care to advise of the risks of the procedure. Which he did not advise the dangers or risks to his patient. Also, the as the first procedure was completed at a lower standard, it was the defendant’s duty of care to correct his mistakes. The defendant was not capable of corrective surgery and should have referred the case to a more experienced surgeon.
The defendant was found liable and the client was awarded a sum of $XY for her pain and suffering, and medical expenses.
The client is understood that she will require multiple further treatments to correct her eyelids.