Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Malpractice and Why These Cases Are Difficult to Win
Published .
The general concept
A disappointing result after cosmetic surgery is not automatically malpractice. Aesthetic procedures involve medical judgment, individual anatomy, healing, and risks that can occur even when a surgeon uses reasonable care. A malpractice claim must connect a specific departure from the professional standard of care to a real injury. That can be difficult when the complaint is mainly that the result does not look as expected, when the claimed problem is a disclosed complication, or when the evidence cannot distinguish a negligent act from an inherent risk, an underlying condition, or later care. An informed-consent claim is different: it asks whether the patient received material information needed to make a choice about treatment. A signed form is evidence, but it does not by itself answer every question about what was explained, whether the information was adequate, or whether the omission caused harm.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland applies its healthcare-malpractice rules to claims against covered physicians and other health care providers, including plastic surgeons. A claimant generally must file with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO); unless the sole issue is lack of informed consent, a certificate of a qualified expert and the expert’s report ordinarily must be filed within 90 days. The expert must satisfy statutory qualifications, and the defendant’s specialty or board certification may affect who can attest to the standard of care. Maryland’s informed-consent law focuses on material information a patient needs to make an intelligent choice, and expert evidence may be important to show that a particular risk was material. In Mahler v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, the patient underwent elective chin surgery and alleged that permanent numbness and other risks had not been adequately disclosed; the Appellate Court of Maryland addressed the evidence needed to let that informed-consent claim proceed. The practical proof often includes preoperative photographs and records, the consent discussion and forms, operative and follow-up notes, expert opinions on both the surgical care and causation, and evidence of the injury and its effect. Claims can be harder to pursue when the injury is temporary or largely subjective, when revision treatment is uncertain, or when likely provable damages do not justify the substantial expert and litigation costs. A jury may also have to separate dissatisfaction with appearance from a legally compensable injury. The statute of limitations is generally the earlier of five years from the injury or three years from discovery, subject to statutory exceptions; HCADRO filing is treated as filing an action for this purpose. Noneconomic-damage limits may also apply. These procedural and proof issues explain why some firms decline these matters, but they do not establish that any particular claim lacks merit. Prompt review of records, photographs, consent materials, and deadlines can be important.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings §§ 3-2A-01, 3-2A-02, 3-2A-04, 3-2A-09, and 5-109.; Mahler v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Inc., 170 Md. App. 293, 907 A.2d 276 (2006).; Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 432, 379 A.2d 1014 (1977).