Litigation in Rhinoplasty : Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Journal Logo


Litigation in Rhinoplasty

Ganesh Kumar, Nishant M.D.; Hricz, Nicholas B.S.; Drolet, Brian C. M.D.

Author Information
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 143(2):p 456e-458e, February 2019. | DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005249
  • Free


Rhinoplasty remains one of the most common operations performed in the United States—approximately 220,000 were performed in 2017.1 Performed by appropriately trained surgeons, rhinoplasty results in good outcomes with high patient satisfaction.2–4 Although serious complications such as hematoma, infection, perforation, and breathing difficulties are relatively rare, the consequences can be devastating.5 When complications occur, some patients pursue malpractice litigation based on a breach in the standard of care. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with malpractice litigation against surgeons performing rhinoplasty.

Westlaw (Thomson Reuters, Eagan, Minn.) is a legal research service containing more than 40,000 cases in an online database.6 Using the keywords “medical,” “malpractice,” and “rhinoplasty,” the database was reviewed for all rhinoplasty malpractice cases resulting in jury verdicts and settlements. All reports were reviewed by the authors to determine plaintiff and defendant demographics, alleged liability, and legal outcomes. Training information of named defendant surgeons was extracted manually through a broad Internet search.

A total of 40 unique cases directly related to injury after rhinoplasty were identified. The majority of plaintiffs were female [n = 37 (93 percent)], whereas the majority of defendants were male surgeons [n = 36 (90 percent)] (Table 1). Most surgeons were trained in plastic surgery (54 percent), followed by otolaryngology (27 percent) (Table 2). Only 14 percent of surgeons underwent a facial plastic surgery fellowship after residency. The majority of cases were in favor of the defendant (85 percent). Of the cases that resulted in monetary awards to the plaintiff, none were against fellowship-trained surgeons. Monetary awards ranged from $16,362 to $606,575 and were on average higher for non–fellowship-trained otolaryngologists (mean, $403,288) (Table 2). The most common alleged liability was surgeon negligence [n = 30 (75 percent)], with 17 percent of those cases resulting in a monetary award.

Table 1.:
Demographics of Plaintiffs and Defendants along with Defendant Training
Table 2.:
Cases Resulting in Jury Verdicts along with Monetary Compensations

This study demonstrates that most malpractice litigation following rhinoplasty is awarded in favor of the surgeon. To successfully litigate, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant-surgeon had a duty to care for the patient and committed a breach in the standard of care, and that injuries and damages resulted from this breach. Factors associated with a verdict favoring the plaintiff included surgeon negligence resulting in definable damages. When litigation was successful, the monetary award to the plaintiff was often substantial. Whereas more rhinoplasties were performed by plastic surgeons in this cohort, the rate of successful litigation against both training groups (plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists) was equal. The majority of surgeons in this cohort did not have fellowship training. Among fellowship-trained surgeons, there were no successful cases of litigation by a plaintiff. This suggests that there may be some protective effect of dedicated training and additional experience in performing rhinoplasty. Overall, this viewpoint demonstrates the importance of surgeon training and experience in avoiding negligence and subsequent malpractice litigation.


None of the authors has a financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

Nishant Ganesh Kumar, M.D.
Section of Plastic Surgery
Department of Surgery
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Mich.

Nicholas Hricz, B.S.
University of Maryland, College Park
Baltimore, Md.

Brian C. Drolet, M.D.
Department of Plastic Surgery
Department of Biomedical Informatics
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Nashville, Tenn.


1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2017 plastic surgery statistics report. Available at: Accessed June 3, 2018.
2. Tanna N, Nguyen KT, Ghavami A, et al. Evidence-based medicine: Current practices in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:137e–151e.
3. Simsek G, Demirtas E. Comparison of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction after 2 different rhinoplasty techniques. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25:1284–1286.
4. Schwitzer JA, Sher SR, Fan KL, Scott AM, Gamble L, Baker SB. Assessing patient-reported satisfaction with appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q appraisal scales. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:830e–837e.
5. Layliev J, Gupta V, Kaoutzanis C, et al. Incidence and preoperative risk factors for major complications in aesthetic rhinoplasty: Analysis of 4978 patients. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:757–767.
6. Westlaw TR. Westlaw Jury Verdicts 2017. Available at: Accessed June 3, 2018.


Viewpoints, pertaining to issues of general interest, are welcome, even if they are not related to items previously published. Viewpoints may present unique techniques, brief technology updates, technical notes, and so on. Viewpoints will be published on a space-available basis because they are typically less timesensitive than Letters and other types of articles. Please note the following criteria:

  • Text—maximum of 500 words (not including references)
  • References—maximum of five
  • Authors—no more than five
  • Figures/Tables—no more than two figures and/or one table

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Viewpoints should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at We strongly encourage authors to submit figures in color.

We reserve the right to edit Viewpoints to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content must be disclosed. Submission of a Viewpoint constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and assignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Viewpoints represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons