Improper performance of a blepharoplasty
A 63-year-old man came to Ophthalmologist A for treatment of sagging eyelids.
by Olga Maystruk, Designer and Brand Strategist, and
Jennifer Templin, Risk Management Representative
Presentation and physician action
A 63-year-old man came to Ophthalmologist A for treatment of sagging upper and lower eyelids. Upon examination, the physician recommended a blepharoplasty to correct the condition.
Three months later, on September 5, Ophthalmologist A performed the upper and lower eyelid surgery. During a follow-up appointment on September 10, the physician noted a right-side lower lid laceration that was then stitched.
One week later, the patient returned for the removal of stitches. During that visit, Ophthalmologist A noted laxity and recommended a canthoplasty to tighten the right eyelid.
On October 9, the patient went to a plastic surgeon about a scar on the right lower eyelid and cheek area. The patient claimed he had been burned by a laser during the blepharoplasty. The plastic surgeon recommended a scar revision and bilateral lid surgery for asymmetry.
On November 5, the patient consulted with Ophthalmologist B about the scar revision. Ophthalmologist B recommended a second blepharoplasty followed by the scar revision surgery to be performed by a plastic surgeon.
On December 1, Ophthalmologist B performed bilateral lid surgery. Nine months later, the plastic surgeon performed the scar revision surgery.
Allegations
The patient filed a lawsuit against Ophthalmologist A alleging improper performance of a blepharoplasty resulting in a scar below the right eye.
Legal implications
Ophthalmologist A and the patient presented different versions of what occurred during and after the blepharoplasty. The patient claimed the burn on his face was caused by a laser, while Ophthalmologist A reported using an electrosurgical device (a bovie) to make the incision. Ophthalmologist A could not recall the injury or its repair. However, there was evidence of a burn and subsequent repair with sutures.
The operative report for the lower lid procedure and notes from the follow-up visit were missing; there was no official record of what instruments were used during the procedure or how the injury occurred. The experts for the defense agreed that the lack of documentation presented a major weakness in the defense of this case.
Disposition
The case was settled on behalf of Ophthalmologist A.
More on improper performance.
Disclaimer
This closed claim study is based on an actual malpractice claim from Texas Medical Liability Trust. This case illustrates how action or inaction on the part of the physicians led to allegations of professional liability, and how risk management techniques may have either prevented the outcome or increased the physician’s defensibility. This study has been modified to protect the privacy of the physicians and the patient.
Subscribe to Case Closed to receive insights from resolved cases.
You’ll receive two closed claim studies every month. These closed claim studies are provided to help physicians improve patient safety and reduce potential liability risks that may arise when treating patients.
Related Case Studies
Discover more insights, stories, and resources to keep you informed and inspired.
Retained foreign object
Improper performance of TURP
