Cosmetic Surgery Compensation Claims

The Department of Health estimates that the value of cosmetic letrozole online australia, wellbutrin online prescriptions. procedures in the UK in 2015 is likely to be in excess of A?3.6bn.

The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons advises that more than 50,000 cosmetic surgery procedures were performed in the UK in 2013. British men and women are undergoing an increasing number of operations for buying online cialis in china. cosmetic treatment, such as face lifts, eyelid surgery, liposuction and rhinoplasty.Ai?? Cosmetic treatment andAi?? surgery has become big business.

More than 90% of patients undergoing cosmetic procedures are women, and breast augmentation is the most popular operation. For male patients the most popular treatment is rhinoplasty.

Like any surgical procedure or course of medical treatment it is important that the patient has a good understanding of what the treatment involves, so that they can make an informed decision of whether or not to have the treatment.

If doctors and surgeons fail to provide patients with the information required to make an informed decision, then the medical practitioners may face criticism and possibly compensation claims. This was seen in recent compensation claims made by women who had undergone courses of cosmetic treatment by injections to rejuvenate their skin and make it appear younger.

The cosmetic injections contained bovine (cow) material.Ai?? However, it is believed that up to 10% of people are vulnerable to suffering an allergic reaction to bovine products, varying between a mild and a severe reaction, even to small traces of bovine products.

The advertising brochure of the company that marketed the cosmetic injections failed to mention that there may be bovine material contained in the injections, and the clinics and medical practitioners who carried out the injections also failed to mention that the solutions in the injections may contain bovine material. The advertisement brochure indicated that the solution used in the cosmetic injections would be the patientsai??i?? own cells.

The Court of Appeal held that the patients were entitled to make compensation claims against the medical practitioners who carried out the cosmetic injections my pham tenamyd. because the medical practitioners had used the advertising brochures and allowed their patients to rely on the information contained in the brochures. There was no disclaimer statement in the brochures.

The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that the patients who underwent the cosmetic injections were consumers and the medical practitioners were medically qualified and consequently there was an obvious imbalance of knowledge. The clinics gave the patients the brochure and, the medical practitioners failing to give them any advice to the contrary, the patients relied on the contents of the doxepin high. brochure. The brochure was misleading and, in the circumstances, the patients who relied on the brochure were entitled to claim compensation.

The Court of Appealai??i??s decision in: Ai??Webster and Others v Liddington and Others