The plaintiff visited the defendant plastic surgeon in order to address what
she observed to be sagging in her breasts. Rather than recommending a simple
mastopexy procedure, the defendant physician recommended that the plaintiff have
breast augmentation with implants and a periareolar mastopexy. Ultimately, the
plaintiff required further surgery because the periareolar breast augmentation
and mastopexy failed to solve her problems. Indeed, the plaintiff contended that
these procedures made her condition worse. She was also left with significant
scarring, ptosis and capsular contraction.
The defendant contended that he provided the plaintiff with the appropriate
informed consent. The defendant advised that he actually recommended a simple
mastopexy procedure, but the plaintiff refused to follow this
recommendation.
The medical chart that the defendant produced during discovery in the course
of the litigation supported his factual position. Nevertheless, the medical
chart that was produced by his office before the lawsuit was filed supported the
plaintiff's contentions.
John Ratkowitz was able to settle the case soon after
the defendant was deposed and the two sets of medical records were revealed.
Click here to
email Mr. Ratkowitz.
