The self-represented plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action arising from cosmetic eyelid surgeries, alleging negligent surgical technique, lack of informed consent, disfigurement, and later eye complications.
The court preferred the defence oculoplastic expert over the plaintiff's plastic surgery expert, finding the initial and subsequent surgeries were competently performed and that the moving party had consented to them after adequate disclosure of risks, benefits, and medically reasonable alternatives.
Although the defendant's limitation defence failed because ongoing good-faith remedial efforts made earlier litigation inappropriate, the plaintiff failed on standard of care, informed consent, and causation.
The action was dismissed, with the court also assessing hypothetical damages in the event liability had been established.
