Our client, a woman in her mid-20’s, elected to undergo a breast reduction procedure at a Cosmetic Surgeon’s office in Florida. She had long suffered from back pain, neck pain, and limitations in physical activity due to the size of her breasts. The surgeon was not board-certified in plastic surgery and had recently completed a 1-year training program in “cosmetic surgery.”
Prior to surgery, the surgeon assured our client that she was a good candidate for the procedure and that the risks were minimal. However, the pre-operative process was rushed, and important aspects of her medical history and risk factors were not properly evaluated.
The procedure was performed by the defendant surgeon, who failed to adhere to the accepted standard of care during both the surgery and the post-operative period.
Shortly after the breast reduction procedure, our client began experiencing alarming symptoms that were inconsistent with a normal post-operative recovery. In the days following surgery, there were clear signs of compromised blood flow to the nipple-areolar complex—an early indicator of nipple necrosis.
Despite these obvious warning signs, the surgeon failed to recognize, diagnose, or disclose the developing condition. Instead of informing the patient of the seriousness of her symptoms, the surgeon reassured her that her healing process was within normal limits.
Over the course of several months, our client’s condition continued to deteriorate. The affected tissue progressively worsened, ultimately resulting in nipple necrosis—a severe and preventable complication involving the death of tissue due to inadequate blood supply.
During this critical period, the surgeon failed to:
Because of this delay in recognition and treatment, our client was deprived of the opportunity for early intervention that could have minimized or prevented the extent of tissue loss.
As a result, she suffered permanent disfigurement, significant physical pain, and profound emotional distress. The injury required extensive additional medical care, including debridement, reconstructive procedures, wound management, and has had lasting effects on her physical appearance and quality of life.
Our firm undertook an extensive pre-suit investigation to evaluate and substantiate our client’s claims. This process included a comprehensive review of medical records, consultations with qualified experts in plastic surgery, and a detailed analysis of the timeline of care and the progression of the injury. Through this work, we identified clear deviations from the accepted standard of care, particularly in the failure to recognize and treat the developing nipple necrosis.
Despite presenting a well-supported claim during the pre-suit phase, the matter could not be resolved at that stage, and we proceeded with formal litigation.
The litigation process was intensive and hard-fought. It included:
Throughout the case, we engaged in ongoing negotiations both at formal mediation and in discussions outside of mediation. These efforts were aimed at securing a fair resolution while continuing to aggressively prepare the case for trial.
After approximately 18 months of litigation, our persistence and thorough preparation positioned the case for a successful outcome, ensuring that our client’s injuries and damages were fully recognized.
This case presented several significant challenges throughout the litigation process. Most notably, the surgery center that employed the defendant surgeon took the position that it should not bear any financial responsibility for the surgeon’s conduct.
Despite clear evidence of the surgeon’s negligence—and the surgery center’s vicarious liability as his employer—the center remained unwilling to meaningfully participate in settlement discussions. Instead, it chose to aggressively defend the case and prolong litigation.
As a result, the defense maintained a unified front aimed at minimizing exposure, forcing the case to proceed through extensive discovery, motion practice, and continued litigation efforts. This resistance required our firm to devote additional time and resources to establish not only the surgeon’s liability, but also to hold the surgery center accountable under well-established legal principles of vicarious liability.
Ultimately, overcoming this challenge required persistent advocacy, strategic litigation, and a willingness to fully prepare the case for trial in order to achieve a just result for our client.
Despite these challenges, we successfully obtained a favorable resolution for our client. The recovery compensated her for:
While no amount of compensation can fully undo the harm caused, the outcome allowed our client to pursue corrective care and move forward with her life.
The case took approximately 18 months to resolve from the date of representation.
This case highlights several important considerations for patients undergoing cosmetic surgery:
Cosmetic procedures, including breast reduction surgery, are medical procedures that require adherence to strict standards of care. When those standards are not followed, patients can suffer serious and permanent harm. Patients who undergo breast reduction surgery trust their providers to follow accepted medical standards, but when those standards are violated, serious complications such as nipple necrosis can occur and may form the basis of a medical malpractice claim.
Nipple necrosis after breast reduction is a rare but well-known complication that requires immediate recognition and treatment; failure to diagnose and manage this condition can result in permanent disfigurement and significant legal liability.