Out-of-scope Cosmetic Surgery: A Review of Malpractice Lawsuits against Nonplastic Surgeons

Abstract

Background: The increasing patient demand for cosmetic surgeries and minimally invasive procedures has encouraged physicians without aesthetic surgery training accredited by the American Board of Medical Specialties to provide these services. This systematic review aims to determine the rate of out-of-scope practice in medical malpractice lawsuits involving cosmetic surgery or minimally invasive procedures performed by nonplastic surgeons. Methods: Our systematic review of the Westlaw legal database from 1979 to 2022 included 64 malpractice cases. Inclusion criteria were cosmetic surgeries or minimally invasive procedures in medical malpractice lawsuits not involving board-certified plastic surgeons. Out-of-scope was defined using the procedural competencies established by the American Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Commission on Dental Accreditation, and the Council of Podiatric Medical Education. Data on legal proceedings, provider credentials and board certification, surgical interventions, and legal outcomes were collected. Results: The majority of malpractice cases involving cosmetic surgeries or minimally invasive procedures occurred when providers were practicing out of scope (N = 34; 55.7%). The verdict was ruled in favor of the plaintiff (patient) in 34.4% of cases. Out-of-scope practice occurred most in family/internal medicine, no board certification, and obstetrics/gynecology (N = 4, N = 4, and N = 3, respectively). The most common allegation was permanent injury or disfigurement (N = 21; 21.4%). Plastic surgeons provided expert testimony 44.0% of the time. Conclusion: Our review of the Westlaw legal database suggests that the majority of nonplastic surgeon cosmetic malpractice cases may occur in the setting of out-of-scope practice.