Deborah Elgrichi, Gilbert Elgrichi v. Adrien Aiache
Published: Dec. 16, 2000 | Result Date: Oct. 31, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC059251 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Carmen S. Vigil
(Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O'Keefe & Nichols)
Experts
Plaintiff
Harry Marshak
(medical)
Defendant
Susan Downey
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Deborah Elgrichi, consulted with defendant plastic surgeon, Adrien Aiache in January 1997 and
September 1998, regarding possible breast augmentation. She had multiple consultations with the defendant,
communicating her desire that she wanted large implants with good elevation and shape, with minimal
scarring. The defendant advised her, on multiple occasions, that there was no one specific surgical technique
that would accomplish all of these goals. For the lift and shaping, he recommended the inverted T mastopexy
technique, which would leave scars both under the breast and around the nipple. The plaintiff did not wish this
procedure because of excessive scarring, so the defendant agreed to perform a crescent lift procedure, which
ultimately provides less elevation and shaping, but also less scarring.
The latter surgery was performed on Oct. 27, 1998. During this procedure, the defendant had to make a minor
stab wound at the left breast in order to affix a "mattress-type suture" to stabilize the inframammary fold and
ensure that the pocket created would accommodate the implant. During this procedure, at the plaintiffÆs
request, 425 cc saline-filled implants were inserted under the pectoralis major muscle.
Because of the plaintiffÆs poor tissue integrity and other factors, the mattress suture dehisced, and the plaintiffÆs
tissues extruded through the incisional area, creating scarring in an area not usually seen in a crescent lift
procedure.
Four subsequent surgical procedures followed, between Nov. 7, 1998 and Feb. 10, 1999. The first two
procedures involved a revision of the wound dehiscence on the left side, and a revision of the right breast, again
creating additional scars, in an effort to achieve the visual result the plaintiff desired. Since the plaintiff was
still unhappy with the significant droop of her breasts, she requested and the defendant agreed to perform the
inverted T full mastopexy as originally recommended. This was done on Feb. 10, 1999. Since significant skin
would be removed during this procedure, the larger implants were replaced with smaller, 255 cc implants.
Subsequent to the latter surgery, the plaintiff developed a hematoma, which required evacuation.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand for $124,999 as to plaintiff and $64,999 as to plaintiff husband. The defendant offered to waive costs of defense.
Specials in Evidence
Approximately $5,000 for the surgery performed by the defendant; approximately $13,000 for the hospitalization for the evacuation of the hematoma. $12,000 for planned reconstructive breast surgery, including replacement of implants and capsulectomy
Damages
The plaintiffs alleged general damages in the amount of $250,000 as to each defendant.
Injuries
The plaintiff alleged extreme pain and suffering, excessive scars which were not consented to, insomnia, inability to care for her children and home, due to the continuing pain. Plaintiff husband alleged a significant decrease in quantity and quality of the marital sexual relationship, as well as the diminution in his wifeÆs ability to perform her normal daily activities in the home and in the care of their children.
Deliberation
one hour
Poll
12-0
Length
seven days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390