Have you recently undergone liposuction surgery and suffered injury or illness as a result? If your procedure was carried out at a lower than professional standard, you may be entitled to cosmetic surgery compensation.
Healys has an established track record of helping clients achieve the compensation they deserve in medical negligence cases. Contact us today so that we can start fighting for your cosmetic surgery compensation.
Typically, this form of cosmetic surgery is chosen as an option for weight loss and body sculpting when an individual cannot reduce their fat levels through normal measures such as diet and exercise. Liposuction removes excess fat from certain areas of the body.
Although there are a number of techniques, the most common process begins with an anaesthetic fluid injection to dilute and prepare fat cells for removal and dull the pain. Surgeons then utilise ultrasound technology to break down fat cell structures.
After this procedure, drainage needles may be required to drain fluid pockets from the affected areas. The surgeon then makes an incision and uses vacuum-like equipment to suck out the compromised fat cells.
Although liposuction is generally considered to be safe, the procedure does present some inherent risks. Some of these risks are equal to those found in any other invasive surgical procedures. The common hazards include possible nerve damage, blood clotting, allergic reaction and biological infections. All of these complications present potentially severe consequences. In some cases, they can even cause cardiac arrest, permanent paralysis and brain damage.
All medical centres have a responsibility to check for pre-existing conditions such as heart problems, lung disease and diabetes, so that they can minimize the possibility of these complications, before carrying out liposuction on a patient.
The medical staff must utilise a complete medical questionnaire to identify these issues. They must also provide reasonable explanations of all risks involved to patients. Any necessary medical equipment must be kept on hand to deal with emergencies, if they occur.
The amount of fat removed from the individual is the most important factor in assessing the risk of liposuction procedures. Any amount over 10 pounds greatly increases the risks involved with excessive fat removal.
The surgeon must also use caution when managing the fluid ratio during a liposuction procedure. A miscalculation of this ratio can result in serious complications, such as pulmonary oedema. This complication occurs when fat cells and fluid enter the lungs and can cause respiratory failure.
Cosmetic problems can also occur due to excessive liposuction. Loose, uneven or sagging skin may appear and force further corrective surgery. In some cases, the procedure causes alterations in skin pigmentation. A well-trained, competent cosmetic surgeon should be able to avoid these risks and provide the results that patients want.
4th December 2018
Jonathan Austen-Jones represented the Claimant (“ER”), a 53 years old man who was taken by ambulance to the Royal Sussex County Hospital on 4 March 2017 after suffering with abdominal pain over the previous two days. Continue reading »
RH sought help and advice from Jonathan Austen-Jones to investigate a potential claim for clinical negligence against the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust following back surgery carried out by one of its orthopaedic and spinal specialists.
Continue reading »
29th November 2018
Gazebos are used by all kinds of organisations when attending events up and down the country. It may not seem that an employer’s duty to assess and minimise workplace risks would extend to tasks such as carrying and assembling gazebos, but a recent case shows that it does. Continue reading »
28th November 2018
In order to succeed in a ‘secondary victim’ claim as a result of clinical negligence it is necessary to establish that the claimant suffered psychiatric illness or injury – as opposed to grief, sorrow, deprivation or the need to provide care for the loved one who has suffered the injury – as a result of witnessing a sudden, shocking event. Given the number of hurdles a claimant has to clear to show that the many tests have been met, there have been very few successful claims to date. Continue reading »
26th November 2018
Two recent cases illustrate that employers need to be vigilant in assessing tripping and slipping hazards in areas where workers perform their tasks. If they fail in this duty, those who are injured as a result may be able to claim compensation. Continue reading »
23rd November 2018
A radical proposal for cycling awareness has been unveiled by the government. The plans include a series of measures to improve safety for vulnerable road users, and to encourage and support cycling. The aim is to reduce the significant number of serious and fatal accidents suffered by cyclists. Continue reading »
24th July 2017
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced measures to tackle fraudulent sickness claims. Fraudulent claims of food poisoning by holidaymakers which are false or exaggerated claims, could result in British tourists paying higher package holiday prices. Continue reading »
27th February 2017
The last revision of the discount rate was undertaken on 25th June 2001, when it was set at 2.5%. From 20th March 2017, the rate drops from 2.5% to minus 0.75%. It is a change of 3.25 percentage points. Continue reading »
21st January 2016
Jonathan Austen-Jones acted on behalf of the applicant in this case who was the subject of sexual abuse at the hands of his step-father between the ages of about 5 and 7.
An initial application for compensation pursuant to the 1990 Scheme was made in 1992 and in June 1996 he was awarded £10,000.00 in respect of the abuse he had suffered. This award was clearly too low and it appears that no psychiatric evidence was before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). Continue reading »
Jonathan Austen-Jones acted on behalf of the claimant in her claim for damages for clinical negligence. The claim arose from the tragic loss of her baby’s life as a consequence of the failure of the Defendant Trust, appreciating that baby B had a Group B streptococcus infection at his birth on the night of the 1st January 2009, resulting in baby B’s death at 00.55 hours on the 3rd January 2009. Continue reading »