Geldards successful in recovering damages in cosmetic procedure case

Amy-Beth Probert in Geldards’ Medical Negligence team succeeded in a medical negligence claim on behalf of a client who received a negligent cosmetic procedure.

Our client sought treatment for spider veins on her lower legs, as she was distressed by their appearance. The Defendant suggested at least three treatments of Fibrovein injections. Our client was informed that the treatment could leave the appearance of the vessels beneath more obvious, but no other complications were discussed with her.

On the same date as her first consultation our client was injected with 1ml of 0.2% Fibrovein. The treatment was not effective. The Defendant arranged to review the following week to try a higher dose of Fibrovein. During her second consultation our client was injected with a higher dose of Fibrovein but this was also ineffective.

Around two weeks after the second treatment our client became distressed as the injection sites had formed scabs which were beginning to turn black. Our client contacted the Defendant expressing her concern and a further consultation was arranged. During this consultation the Defendant examined the wounds which had begun to smell and were infected. Our client was given steroid cream to apply to the injection sites.

Our client’s legs continued to deteriorate and following an attendance to her General Practitioner, she was referred to hospital where she was informed that there was necrotic tissue around the injection sites. As a result of the treatment our client was left with two ulcerated wounds and was referred to the complex leg wound unit.

Geldards was instructed and investigations were undertaken. Medical disclosure was obtained, and steps were taken to instruct an expert to prepare a breach of duty report.

A Consultant Vascular and Endovascular Surgeon prepared a report which confirmed that our client suffered a local ulceration at the injection sites following the sclerotherapy treatment as a result of the sclerosant escaping into the surrounding soft tissue leading to the necrosis.

It was confirmed that there was no record of compression to the injection site which would have reduced the risk to the surrounding tissue. It was further confirmed that the Defendant failed to obtain adequate consent prior to administering the treatment and no warning information was provided either verbally or in writing. It was advised that a full recovery should have been made and the on-going nature of the injuries was unusual.

A Letter of Claim was served on the Defendant and liability was admitted, subject to causation. The Defendant stated that they were unable to engage in settlement negotiations unless we provided further evidence to verify the nature of the injuries that our client sustained.

As such, we continued our investigations and obtained a Condition and Prognosis report. The report concluded that the persistent low-grade inflammation at the injection site resulted in more extensive scarring, dimpling and brown pigmentation around each site, as well as minor lymphatic damage. The expert noted that the pigmentation would remain permanent and whilst plastic surgery was an option to resolve the dimpling, this could result in further scarring.

An offer was eventually made on behalf of the Defendant in the sum of £15,000. After careful consideration and advice being provided, our client accepted the offer.


How can we help?

Our friendly team of Medical Negligence experts are here to support you through your claim. For more information, contact Linda Williams.

Like to talk about this Insight?

Get Insights in your inbox

To Top