Complications of aesthetic medicine procedures: five case studies.

The paper presents the cases of five patients who developed complications after aesthetic medicine procedures. Four of the cases involved women who reported to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, for a description and legal qualification of bodily injuries suffered as a result of aesthetic medicine procedures, whereas one was related to the assessment of accuracy of medical management at the request of the prosecutor handling the case. The reported cases concerned acid exfoliation treatments, photoepilation and cryotherapy. The authors attempt to discuss the most common complications that may occur after aesthetic medicine procedures, and measures to avoid them.

Unattractive consequences: litigation from facial dermabrasion and chemical peels.

BACKGROUND: Facial dermabrasion and chemical peel are common cosmetic procedures that are generally safe yet do possess inherent risks. The patient's expectations, formed well in advance of treatment, strongly correlate with overall satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: The authors reviewed and analyzed litigation related to the performance of facial dermabrasion and chemical peel. METHODS: The authors searched the WestlawNext legal database for relevant litigation and examined factors such as allegations raised, patient demographics, defendant specialties, final outcomes, and payments. RESULTS: Proceedings from 25 cases were analyzed, involving 22 female and 2 male plaintiffs; in 1 case, sex was not specified. Sixteen cases (64%) resulted in a decision for the defendant and 9 (36%) were resolved with payments. The median difference between out-of-court settlements (median, $940 000) and jury-awarded damages (median, $535 000) was not statistically significant. Factors raised in litigation included poor cosmetic outcome (80%), alleged intratreatment negligence (68%), permanent injury (64%), informed-consent deficits (60%), emotional/psychological injury (44%), posttreatment negligence (32%), and the need for additional treatment/surgery (32%). CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-court settlements and jury-awarded damages were considerable in cases where physicians practicing various (or multiple) specialties were named as defendants. These findings emphasize the need for physicians to thoroughly document potential complications prior to treatment, during the informed-consent process. Additionally, general considerations should be taken into account, such as patient expectations and the potential need for other procedures, which may enhance pretreatment communication and ultimately minimize liability. Finally, it is important to stress that physicians may be held liable for procedures performed by nonphysician ancillary staff.