Medical negligence · Anonymised case study
Lalloo Solicitors acted for a client who underwent facial cosmetic surgery, including eyelid surgery and neck liposuction, followed by two revision operations.
The client reported continuing problems with the appearance and comfort of the neck. The claim settled for €120,000, without an admission of liability.
The client sought treatment for facial ageing, particularly the appearance of the jawline and jowls.
After the initial operation, the client reported that the neck became stiff, tight and lumpy. Two further operations followed, but the client remained dissatisfied with the jawline and neck.
The claim described visible scarring and puckering, difficulty raising the chin, and an effect on confidence and self-esteem.
Later steroid treatment brought some improvement, according to the client’s account. The independent expert nevertheless identified residual scarring and irregularity in the chin and neck.
A consultant plastic surgeon examined the client and reviewed the available treatment records and photographs.
The expert did not criticise every part of the treatment. The eyelid procedure was considered appropriate and appeared to have achieved its intended result.
The criticism concerned the neck treatment and the consultation process. In the expert’s opinion, neck liposuction was not appropriate for the sagging shown in the pre-operative photographs. The expert also considered that apparently excessive liposuction had caused scarring beneath the skin and visible irregularity.
These were expert opinions supporting the claim—not findings made by a court.
The operative notes did not clearly establish the precise facelift technique used. The expert also found that the photographs were not sufficiently standardised for a straightforward comparison.
The records therefore mattered beyond simply showing a disappointing cosmetic result. They were needed to understand what had been done at each operation, why further surgery was proposed and what the client had been told.
The expert identified missing patient signatures on the consent forms for the revision procedures and no operative record for the third operation.
Those omissions formed part of the criticism of the documentation. They were not treated as automatic proof that the client had given no consent.
The claim settled for €120,000, with no admission of liability.
There was no court judgment establishing negligence. The settlement should not be presented as confirmation that the defendants accepted the allegations or the expert’s conclusions.
This case required a review of the individual procedures, the reasons for revision surgery, the treatment records and the expert’s assessment of the resulting scarring.
It also required a balanced account. One procedure appeared successful, while the neck treatment attracted substantial expert criticism. Describing everything as a failed operation would not accurately reflect the evidence.
For related information, see our page on medical negligence claims. Information about Lalloo Solicitors and its work is available on the Injured.ie homepage.
Identifying details have been omitted. This account concerns one settled claim and does not establish the likely value or outcome of another case.
In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.
