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.