HealthDay operates under the strictest editorial standards. Our syndicated news content is completely independent of any financial interests, is based solely on industry-respected sources and the latest scientific research, and is carefully fact-checked by a team of industry experts to ensure accuracy.
- All articles are edited and checked for factual accuracy by our Editorial Team prior to being published.
- Unless otherwise noted, all articles focusing on new research are based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals or issued from independent and respected medical associations, academic groups and governmental organizations.
- Each article includes a link or reference to the original source.
- Any known potential conflicts of interest associated with a study or source are made clear to the reader.
Please see our Editorial and Fact-Checking Policy for more detail.Editorial and Fact-Checking Policy
HealthDay Editorial Commitment
HeathDay is committed to maintaining the highest possible levels of impartial editorial standards in the content that we present on our website. All of our articles are chosen independent of any financial interests. Editors and writers make all efforts to clarify any financial ties behind the studies on which we report.
TUESDAY, Sept. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Legal cases relating to soft-tissue filler most often involve physicians, frequently relating to a non-physician performing the procedure, according to a research letter published in the October issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Navid Ezra, M.D., from the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, and colleagues examined a legal database for litigation and disciplinary actions involving soft-tissue fillers. They identified 24 legal documents: 19 cases and five disciplinary actions, which likely underrepresents the true incidence of legal events.
The researchers found that physicians were named as defendants in 13 of the 19 cases; six of the seven cases that named non-physicians involved a substance other than the reported filler being injected. Half of the legal actions resulted from a non-physician performing the procedure. The highest proportion of litigation was seen for dermatologists and plastic surgeons (17 percent for each). Most disciplinary actions reprimanded physicians for not being present while a non-physician employee performed the procedure; physicians were functioning as medical directors of medical spas in three of the five reprimands. Granuloma formation or other autoimmune reaction was the most common injury that triggered litigation. The soft tissue filler most frequently associated with litigation was Zyderm.
"The medico-legal culture is one where physicians are responsible for their physician extenders," the authors write. "Further research should evaluate whether the presence of a physician affects rate of developing complications."
This story may be outdated. We suggest some alternatives.
The content contained in this article is over two years old. As such our recommendation is that you reference the articles below for the latest updates on this topic. This article has been left on our site as a matter of historic record. Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions.
Updated on September 28, 2015