Cosmetic Surgery Negligence

If you have suffered a personal injury as a result of negligence during a cosmetic procedure and this has caused you loss, you may be able to seek recourse.

To prove medical negligence, it must be shown:

• That the standard of care you received fell below that of a competent physician of the same level and

• This negligence caused damage or injury

You may have experienced medical negligence under the following circumstances:

• You feel that you were not provided with enough information on the risks of your procedure

• You feel that your procedure was not performed to industry standards or a defective product was used during your procedure

• You did not receive sufficient aftercare

If you have reason to believe you have suffered damage or injury as a result of a mistake made during a cosmetic surgery procedure, we may be able to assist you. When you first contact us, we will listen carefully to the details of your case and advise on whether you may have a valid claim. 

Consent
With any surgical case, one of the biggest issues to consider is that of consent. All surgeons need to ensure they have their patients consent and that their patients are aware of all the risks and complications associated with their procedure.

We offer advice in the following specialist areas of cosmetic surgery

• Breast surgery claims

• Dermal filler claims

• Laser eye surgery

• Laser treatment negligence

Many Irish citizens travel abroad each year for the purpose of accessing cheaper medical treatments including dental, surgical and cosmetic procedures. Those who opt to travel for surgery should be aware that any procedure of this nature carries risks and all travellers should familiarise themselves with the risks and benefits of any procedures. They should also discuss their treatment plans with their GP prior to travelling.

Irish citizens travelling abroad for any medical treatment are advised to carry out independent research. They should be aware that the EU Cross-Border Directive and Treatment Abroad Scheme does not extend to countries outside the EU.

Case Overview:

In September 2020, the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic (keyhole) operation for removal of the adrenal gland.

During the operation the plaintiff lost a large amount of blood, described as a life-threatening haemorrhage, that led to conversion to an open operation. Instead of having the adrenal gland removed, the plaintiff had a large part of the pancreas removed.

Subsequently the patient required a transfer to another hospital, under the care of another surgeon who undertook an open bilateral adrenalectomy and repair of the injured pancreas.

The plaintiff instructed Lavelle Partners to investigate the circumstances of the case and we obtained expert evidence from a consultant surgeon in the UK. Our expert believed the operation was performed in such a way that it led to a failure to remove the organ. He further opined that having half of the plaintiff’s pancreas removed instead of the adrenal gland cannot be accepted as a possible or reasonable risk associated with the planned operation and so the surgeon was deemed to have been negligent.

Proceedings were issued on behalf of the plaintiff and the case was successfully settled for a significant sum plus the plaintiff’s costs in advance of the trial date.

Case Overview:

Our client was diagnosed with ectopic adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) his adrenal glands were producing excessive level of cortisol.

He was initially treated with medication but he was advised that such treatment was temporary and he would ultimately require removal of both adrenal glands.

Despite the option of bilateral adrenalectomy being available, a decision was made to proceed initially by way of a left adrenalectomy and thereafter, following a period of recuperation, to undertake a right adrenalectomy.

He was admitted to hospital to undergo a left laparoscopic adrenalectomy.  At surgery, the operation note indicates that a “massively enlarged” adrenal gland was identified, which was described as expanding in front of the renal vessels and below the pelvis of the kidney.  In the course of dissecting the mass off the renal vessels, severe bleeding was encountered which necessitated converting the surgery to an open procedure.  Ultimately however, the operation note confirms “adrenalectomy completed”.

Despite the content of the operation note, the subsequent histology report revealed that the left adrenal gland had not been removed.  CT examination confirmed that the left adrenal gland remained in situ; the surgery that had in fact been undertaken was a partial pancreatectomy up to the pancreatic neck.

In the aftermath of his surgery, he required prolonged admission to the intensive care unit and his condition was complicated by pancreatic leak and sepsis.  He underwent a bilateral adrenalectomy and a splenectomy, the latter procedure being required in order to repair the injury to the pancreas created at his initial surgery.

This case was mediated a week in advance of the trial and ultimately settled for a substantial sum.