Woman Wins Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website

Scoopy writes "The website of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications. The website contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert, who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face. The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery. Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use 'hot topics' of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens."

According to courtroom reporters...

...The woman looked very surprised at the verdict.

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

Honestly, she looked fine before the surgery. She claims she was at a low point in her life and so on, and didn't even consider surgery till only 3 weeks before she got it. What do you expect when you make such a serious decision on such short notice while admittedly depressed?

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

"What do you expect when you make such a serious decision on such short notice while admittedly depressed?"

Are you saying that under these circumstances one should expect a shitty job? What, does your depression somehow affect the surgeon?

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

What I mean is that when you're depressed and willing to go under the knife three weeks after you first considered the option, you're obviously not doing the sort of research and thinking that should go into this kind of decision. Of course the doctor is still at fault for botching the surgery but she probably could have avoided the entire ordeal if she went about it a little smarter.

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

Well, as a general rule, I'd expect that the "director of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery at UC Davis Medical Center." is, at worst, not likely to be a fly-by-night quack.

No matter how good he is, however, a bad result is always a possibility (even if remote). That this woman ended up on the short end of the stick still doesn't affect the validity of her tail -- if only as a warning of what really can go wrong if you're unlucky. I know one woman who is intensely ashamed of her breasts as a result of the side effects of augmentation surgery. She will no longer wear revealing clothing, because it's too likely to expose the scarring.

That's not the kind of information that you're likely to get in the advertising brochures, or the 'reality television' shows that ("incidently") highlight a different plastic surgeon every week.

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

surgeons say that if you haven't had enough complications, you haven't done enough surgery. They are a statistical thing. The guy clearly is well qualified, and perfectly capable of doing the surgery, technically.

The difficulty here is whether or not she can complain about it - and I would say that she can, but not the way she has done.

Calling it a 'botch' implies that it was done badly. The only way to check this is to look at perhaps the last 1000 patients and see if his results are acceptable or not. Medical confidentiality would mean this would have to be done by internal audit, unless those patients volunteered (which would likely mean all the unhappy customers come forward, skewing results).

Maybe if she could prove he was drunk during the operation or something that would also qualify.

As it is, I think it is fair for her to put up before and after pictures, say who did the surgery, say that she is unhappy, and really do all sorts of free speech things that don't amount to libel.

What if he has the best results of any surgeon, ever, and this is the first 'poor' outcome? That hardly makes it a botch - just her more unlucky.

About 2% of medical negligence cases are found against the doctor. There are often a lot of emotional issues - and she has admitted to these.

I will assume that she also signed an informed consent document which listed all the possible adverse outcomes - such as disfigurement, scarring, infection, death, spontaneous combustion. Maybe she should have weighed up those small but significant risks beforehand a bit more.

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

Calling it a 'botch' implies that it was done badly. The only way to check this is to look at perhaps the last 1000 patients and see if his results are acceptable or not. Medical confidentiality would mean this would have to be done by internal audit, unless those patients volunteered (which would likely mean all the unhappy customers come forward, skewing results).

Well, I would add that done badly from clumsiness or from mistakes. that being said, she did win a malpractice case against him for this surgery dor around 13mill before making the website.

We heard about this back in 2006 [slashdot.org]
. It was pretty amazing that she got it overturned.

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

The last 1000 patients tell you if his outcomes are as expected, better than expected, or worse than expected.

As I already said, complications are a statistical fact regardless of whether the surgeon makes mistakes or not.

If he did the surgery expertly, and the poor outcome was for reasons other than what was in his control - then that's simply not his fault.

This has no comparison to driving. This is accepted medical fact, studied at length by a great number of researchers, with consistent findings of rates of infection in a number of circumstances.

If she had died unexpectedly as a result of the anaesthetic - statistically a 1 in 250 000 chance - then that's out of his control.

If she had a post-operative infection - for this surgery about a 2-5% rate could be expected (I would expect her to be closer to the 2%) - then as long as he has followed accepted practice (aseptic technique, good wound closure, not too heavy on the diathermy, good haemostasis, a few others) - then again, this is a statistical fact.

If we find that he has a 20% infection rate compared to his peers, who have a similar case load and all have a 2% infection rate - then we can raise issues of incompetence.

This is long established. Ultimately, I also have no idea whether he was at fault or not - all I am saying is that sometimes, despite the best will and ability in the world, the outcomes are not ideal, and this is what needs to be established before accusing him of anything.

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

For an extreme example: if a meteorite punches through the roof of a bus, killing the driver instantly, and thereby causing the bus to plunge over an embankment a few seconds later, then who is at fault?

That's EASY. You clearly don't have much imagination.

1. NASA, for failing to predict and warn of the meteorite impact.
2. Congress, for failing to fund meteorite monitoring and prediction services.
3. The public, for failing to elect a Congress that would fund meteorite prediction services.
4. The manufacturer of the bus, for failing to include a roof that could withstand a meteorite impact.
5. Materials scientists, for failing to invent a cheap bus-roof material strong enough to withstand meteorite impacts.

The list goes on and on...

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

That this woman ended up on the short end of the stick still doesn't affect the validity of her tail

He added a tail too? No wonder she is pissed.

Re:According to courtroom reporters...

Honestly, she looked fine before the surgery.

We could just post the pics to hotornot and see which one comes out as the winner. Cutornot?

Link to the website

Here's a link to the actual website, [mysurgerynightmare.com] http://www.mysurgerynightmare.com/ [mysurgerynightmare.com]

Re:Link to the website

Sad thing about that website is that she looked pretty good in the 'before' photo [mysurgerynightmare.com]. People should realise the risks of any surgery before they make minor cosmetic changes to their appeaarance.

Also, TFA is reg-required (Do I really want to spend x minutes signing up & agreeing to God know what on a paper I'll never read again?). So, for your reading pleasure the story from metnews [metnews.com].

Lastly, shouldn't that headline read: Woman's Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website upheld

Re:Link to the website

The 'after photo' definitely looks suspect - it appears as if the height v width ratios have been altered to create more length to the photo than was originally there. Put it back to it's 'correct' dimensions and she might just look a little surprised.

Re:Link to the website

Lastly, shouldn't that headline read: Woman's Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website upheld

The Sacramento Bee has the headline, "Woman wins right to attack her plastic surgeon on the Web".

Attack? What the hell?

Re:Link to the website

People should realise the risks of any surgery before they make minor cosmetic changes to their appeaarance.

Well it's going to be pretty hard to learn about the risks if everybody with a complaint gets muzzled, now isn't it? This lawsuit has the direct effect of protecting peoples' right to learn about the risks.

But I guess we can't have that, now can we? It might be bad for business.

To be honest I don't even see how this case went to trial. How can we claim to have freedom of speech if you can't even complain about somebody doing a poor job? If she had knowingly made a factually false claim, then I could see it.

WTF

Seriously how the hell could this not be construed as free-speech? I mean she is simply providing information on a service she is unhappy about in the hopes of educating others. Jeez I'm getting more and more afraid to open my mouth every day.

Re:WTF

Seriously how the hell could this not be construed as free-speech? I mean she is simply providing information on a service she is unhappy about in the hopes of educating others. Jeez I'm getting more and more afraid to open my mouth every day.

According to the metnews story [metnews.com], the court decided (and the appeals court did not dispute) that the information she is providing is not true. Among other things, her "after" picture was also after four other surgeries from different doctors. So the information was false and damaging. The appeals court said that in this circumstance, it can't be considered defamatory unless the doctor proved her intent was malicious, and he hadn't done that. Apparently the woman's just crazy...

Re:WTF

Short comment -- the rule for defamation of public figures is not "that her intent was malicious", it's that it was delivered with "Actual malice". This doesn't seem like a distinction to most laymen, but it turns out it is: "Actual malice" has a very specific legal definition in the U.S., and it doesn't require "malice".

In this case "actual malice" means "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published with "reckless disregard of the truth". This standard comes up quite a bit in when, for example, a celebrity sues a newspaper for publishing something false and damaging. The celebrity need not prove it was published with intent to harm, only that the newspaper didn't care whether it was true or not. In this case, the appeals court ruled that the doctor was a public figure, and so this standard applies. (For a non-public figure, like a neighbor or classmate who has done nothing to seek the spotlight, the court will accept a defamation claim even without proof of actual malice.)

As with many things, the wikipedia article on actual malice [wikipedia.org] is helpful in explaining this distinction, but only a real lawyer -- and IANAL -- is qualified to interpret it for you.

For those who do not want to register

The Web site of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications.

The Web site, www.mysurgerynightmare.com, contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.

The Web site was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery.

Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use "hot topics" of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens.

"The decision makes it easier for professionals to get defamed and unable to defend themselves," said Daniel L. Baxter, Sykes's lawyer.

First Amendment attorney Charity Kenyon agrees that the decision's reasoning could be applied to lawyers, optometrists, Realtors and other professionals.

"The opinion is good protection for consumers who want to express opinions about services they receive, but professionals who promote themselves may have this burden if they think they have been defamed," Kenyon said.

The court decision, which was released Jan. 26, may be binding on all California counties if it's not overturned by the state Supreme Court. According to the 32-page opinion, which can be viewed here, Sykes immersed himself so much in the public debate over the merits of cosmetic surgery that he became a public figure in the subject.

Sykes, a UC Davis Medical Center professor, is also an author and has written numerous articles that have appeared in medical journals and beauty magazines. He has appeared on local television shows "touting the virtues" of cosmetic and reconstructive surgery, the decision said.

"In our youth and celebrity worshipping culture, the benefits and risks of plastic surgery are a hot topic. The number of people, especially women, who have had minimally invasive cosmetic surgery has grown exponentially in the past several years," said the opinion, written by Justice M. Kathleen Butz.

"Sykes asserts that statements on the Web site do not contribute to the public debate because they only concern Gilbert's interactions with him. He is wrong," said Butz, who was joined in the opinion with justices Ronald B. Robie and Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye.

Baxter said that several statements and representations Gilbert made on her Web site were not true or were misleading.

Baxter cited, for example, the statement Gilbert makes with her before and after photos: "I was told by my doctor that this was a good result - that I looked better after his surgery - what do you think?" Baxter said that when Sykes saw Gilbert, about 2 1/2 months after the surgery, he indicated that she was improving but "never made any indication relative to that picture, or how she was doing five months out."

Gilbert's online comments also make it sound as if she was an unwitting patient who was pushed into plastic surgery, Baxter said. In fact, he said, she "directed (Sykes) to be very aggressive in carrying out the procedures."

Gilbert's lawyer, William L. Brelsford, said true statements and personal opinions are not libelous under the Constitution's First Amendment. The decision, he said, is applying an old law to a new mode of communication.

"Protected public debate is being extended to the Internet," Brelsford said.

Gilbert posted her Web site early in 2005, a year after she filed a medical malpractice suit against Sykes. On the site, she offers advice about finding the "right" surgeon so that others can benefit from her "misfortune."

She has a contact page where readers can share their experiences.

Sykes counter-sued Gilbert claiming he was defamed, suffered emot

Title Correction:

You mean to say "woman defends right to criticize surgeon on website." She cannot win what she already had.

Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website

When asked for comment, Dr Jonathan Sykes said, "If I had to do it over again, I would have chopped off her hands".

its only defamation

libel
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression

You botch someone's face, they post about it, that's not unjust. This seems like a no-brainer. This was only taken to court because someone thought they could play the system.

WTF was she thinking?

I mean she looked pretty good before she hired someone to cut her up.

Also, she probably should have done the malpractice research BEFORE the appointment.

Wow. Just wow.

Helping a little

In the picture on her website, I think looks like she might be helping the surprised look a little. The diffeence in the amount of her eyes showing between the two pictures of the before and after.

Don't be fooled by it, It could be because of the same surgury that raised her eyebrows. But I wouldn't know.

I sure would like to read the story but the link goes to some registration page. I'm not about to give any information do if someone has another link, it would be apriciated.

BTW, isn't she the one who got arested or something a while back for her page?

Move along, nothing to see here...

Just another dumbass who made a snap decision and had a bad outcome. Move along.

Why surgery in the first place?

Slightly off topic, but what's really sad in this story is that the woman was pretty BEFORE the surgery. So there was really no reason for her to go under the knife in the first place. We live in a scary world where people strive to look unnatural (though this woman probably didn't get the unnatural looks she wanted).

That said, it's great that we have plastic surgery for patients with actual disfigurements.

Reconstructive Surgery NOT Benefitted.

gnurfed said, "That said, it's great that we have plastic surgery for patients with actual disfigurements."

My experience is that reconstructive surgery is deteriorating. Plastic surgeons are now learning to do cosmetic procedures, rather than reconstructive. I have a genetic defect with my eyelids, and had three surgeries as a child. Now decades later, I could use additionaladvanced reconstructive surgery to give my eyes a more reasonable appearance.

Eyes are very important to our facial expressions, and although my friends think I look lovely, strangers sometimes do an unpleasant double-take when they see me.

So I wanted to give it another shot, figuring reconstruction has improved since I was a poor child receiving free care.

The Stanford geneticist recommended a Stanford specialist and I went to see him. The waiting room was filled with literature about "eye lifts" for regular, aging people. I consult with the doctor (and I secretly recorded the conversation) and he did his utmost best to talk me out of any surgery at all. I could tell he was floundering.

I provided him records of what had been done, and suggested w2hat could be done, and made clear that I was not expecting miracles, just a slight improvement would be worth it.

He called in his senior, and they spent the next four minutes trying to pass the buck and make the other person do the surgery. The way we left it, was they were going to "contact my insurance" and I never heard back, despite sevferal phone calls.

These were Stanford Medical Center professionals, recommended by the geneticist who deals with birth defects, and THEY only wanted to do normal eyelid lifts. I was so disheartened, I never tried again.

GRR.

IMO way too fscking much money is spent on frivolous surgery.

My story, and I'm too tired to be concise so I'll just... submit it.

What's the big deal...

"The doctor's thermometer is itty-bitty small!"

Silly, silly girl

It's amazing what people with low self-esteem will do to themselves. In this case she starts out (in my opinion) quite a gorgeous woman, and finishes looking like a cross between Cher and Marilyn manson (photos) [mysurgerynightmare.com].

You'd think Michael Jackson would be enough of a deterrent for most people, but I guess you can never underestimate the power of low self-esteem.

Familiar?

Am I the only one finding resemblance to the article of a hardware review site not getting any more alienware hardware because their reviews weren't flattering enough?

Tags

What a "shocking" story.

password

Could you leave a user name and password?

Patient's privacy?

The part I've wanted to see discussed are the doctors rights to publicly rebut a site that complains about them. Under strict medical privacy laws it's not like a doctor could ( or should ) reveal medical details or photos in a public forum. So if a patient complains and sets up a web site, does that absolve the doctor in question from any requirements for maintaing confidentiality? When I heard about this and other similar sites, that was one of my first questions. If not, from a public opinion point of view they're screwed.

I firmly believe that a patient should have the right to critisize their doctor, but I also believe the doctors should have the ablitly to defend themselves. I'd have liked to have seen part of a ruling that said they were no longer required to keep confidentiality for that particular patient.

If the doctor is not in a position to put up a web site, with pictures and inimate details of a patient who's gone public, then that person should be refrained from going public. Since that's pretty hard to enforce retroactively the only recourse seems to view the patient's public proclamations as relinquishing all privacy rights with respect to the doctor or hospital involved.

What?.....

She looked alot better before the surgery than after. She looks much more attractive before the surgery.

Remember, the Doc can always say:

"She asked for it."

People who seek cosmetic surgery and *honestly* don't need it should be aware that they might not be happy with the outcome. Look, if you think need cosmetic surgery in the first place, then you should be spending your money on a therapist or counselor, NOT surgery. The only people who should be having cosmetic surgery are people who were either born with birth defects or are disfigured as the result of an accident.

Therefore, if you weren't disfigure in an accident or born with a birth defect or some kind of disfigurement, then I really don't feel sorry for you if you don't like the way you turned out.

I have only one question to ask these idiotic people who get cosmetic surgery simply for vanity and then complain: "Did you learn a lesson?"

ka-ching$

her website will probably just shift the surgeon into a whole new money-making demographic - men badgered by their wives for not expressing enough interest in whatever it is they're talking about. With eyebrows like that, an occasional tilt of the head away from the football game (or WOW game here I suppose) gives the illusion of intense interest. You're never going to get the "Are you even listening to me?!" line with a brow like this-> http://www.mysurgerynightmare.com/images/ggbae_(2) .jpg [mysurgerynightmare.com]

The surgeon may have a point...

I've visited the web site in question [mysurgerynightmare.com], and I believe the surgeon has a point. It looks like the woman is using some of the same techniques shady businesses use to make before/after photos look different, but in reverse. These are:

- One photo being done in a natural setting, one artificial.
- One photo with a happy expression, one without
- One photo with good lighting, one with very stark.
- One photo with makeup, one without

Some of this is related, but look. She insists one eyebrow is higher than the other and she is left with a permanent "surpised" look. This is quite possible, the eyebrow position can give that look, but raising the eyebrows would not have a significant effect on how wide her eye lids are open. Notice in the second photo she exadgerates her "surpised" look by opening her eyes as wide as possible. Add to that the camera in the before photo is slightly above her, and the angle difference adds to the effect. She is smiling in the first photo, which tends to close the eyelids a little and adjusts the eyebrow position.

The makeup makes quite a difference to shading, and the after photo is in much more stark contrast, which elimates facial details.

Also remember that the woman has filed a malpractice suit and stands to gain financially from seeming to look badly now.

However the court ruled, I think the surgeon had a point.

Re:The surgeon may have a point...

Her face is much longer in the second pic (distance between hairline and chin compared to width of face). The pic could be photoshopped as well. The face in the left pic is 157 pixels from side to side, the right 140. Length goes from 225 to 240. Ratio goes from 1,43 to 1,71. Using the width of my own face as an approximation, it looks like that woman had her face lenghtened by two full inches. If you try to figure out what part(s) of her face could have been stretched this much, the conclusion would pretty much be that the picture has been evenly stretched. I mean, even her forehead is noticabely higher after surgery. Skull extension?

The pic looks fake.

Re:The surgeon may have a point...

While you have a point, it is mitigated by the circumstances surrounding the photos.

The entire point of make-up being to hide imperfections, it is unlikely that she would have a "before" photo without make-up, especially if she had low self-esteem about her looks. If she had such a clinical "before" photo of her own, there would be plenty of people arguing that it was proof of premeditation to sue the doctor.

If she were to wear make-up in the "after" photo it would also mitigate the effects of the surgically created imperfections which would not help her point at all, she wants to demonstrate the problem, not cover it up. Also, one of the reasons women get such work done in the first place is to reduce their perceived need to wear make-up, so if the surgery had gone well, she would not be wearing as much make-up as she had been before the surgery.

Similarly it is unlikely that she would have a "before" photo that wasn't happy, people don't like to take pictures of unhappy times in their lives. You can't expect her to pose for an "after" photo and look happy - she's taking the photo specifically because she is unhappy, it would be ridiculous to expect her to be all smiles about it. Because she feels extremely unhappy with her new looks taking a picture, even in an attempt to get restitution or correction, is going to be an unpleasant experience for her.

Camera and angle and lighting are much more likely to be the result of the amateur nature of both photos than any sort of explicit plan to manipulate the viewer.

So, while I agree that her presentation is not necessarily evenhanded, I really doubt that it was calculated. At the very worst, she probably picked one of her better looking "before" pics and one of her worst "after" pics, but that's no different from a plastic surgeon who does the reverse in his marketing materials.

Jurisdiction?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this ruling only applies to California, since it's a district court. I'm from California and I applaud the ruling, but it doesn't seem like it's going to have a huge impact unless it's a federal (or even international) court. Then again, California does have a lot of doctors...

It's not about winning the lawsuit, necessarily

A defamation lawsuit can server to deter others from speaking up, even if the Plaintiff looses the suit. This strategy is called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)...making Free speech (against them) cost money.

As a personal example, photos of mine were published in the local phone book (in a corporate advertisement) without my permission. When the corporation refused to compensate me, I wrote about it on my website. They then sued me for defamation.

Do I have the certificate of copyright registration for my photos? Yes. Then why would they sue? If nothing else, it means public criticism against them will cost you years in court. This case is very simple, I've long since proven the photos they published are mine, yet the case has been in court for 18 months now. See: Vilana Financial [cgstock.com].

The best part of her web page

is watching the visitor counter at the bottom of the page spin as the site gets /.'d

Not surprised on how the surgery turned out.

Her right eyebrow in the before photo was raised slightly, the surgery appears to have only exaggerated her natural condition. Of course I think she has every right to criticize the results.

Also why does it look like she has an Adam's Apple [mysurgerynightmare.com]?

What is that ?

Is that an Adams Apple in the after photo ?

Really?

...the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.

Fascinating...

Free Speech vs. Patient Privacy

This case does reveal an important question: Does the fact that she went public, nullify her expectation of privacy under HIPPA? For example, if an actress talks about her breast implants on television interviews, can the doctor then talk about her case? With regards to this case it seems that any public discussion on his part regarding her case could be a violation of HIPPA. If it is not a violation, can a porn star's doctor discuss her negative HIV results since she must in fact have negative results to work in the industry? Lots of questions here. Need a medical law specialist.

In terms of the free speech, does his public defense of himself with regards to her case override her privacy expectations?
Finally, a simple question: what does " limited purpose public figure" mean? If my gardener does a crappy job and I post pictures of my dead lawn with his company name, is that defamatory?
Sorry for asking too many questions, but this case has many implications.

Other side effect

The other side effect of the surgery was due to the tightly stretched skin she can't close her eyes when she's sitting down.

Deformation

The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes

Did anyone else read this as "deformation suit"??

Strange a browlift make her looks suprised.

From the article
"Procedures: Endoscopic browlift, upper & lower blepharoplasty, cheeklift and fat injections"

My first thought is if I lift my brows I look suprised.

Michael Jackson

That woman is lucky - I wonder who did Michael's face. His is probably the best known plastic butchery ever...

That is so funny, the article has been deleted

I love it. Speech is free. Talking about it in the newspaper is not.

cosmetic surgery

Well, the ruling of the court did seem to be consistent with the precedent. Criticism of public figures is legally protected free speech. In this case, the court rightfully determined that the doctor was acting as a public figure. This is kind of the same thing as in that whole debacle between Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump. Trump really would be unable to sue her over alleged comments because he is a public figure. Trump is really just using a scare tactic and throwing his money around.

I can't help but laugh...

Georgette had no comment after the ruling, but she appeared surprised.

Defended, not won

This is more like she managed to defend her right to criticize by proving at least per the judge that her claim had merit.

It is only defamation if the claim is false, and you don't have to go out and seek permission to criticize.

K.

Vanity... all is vanity

People who get plastic surgery just so they feel better about themselves (im not talking injury repair or genetic defect, but low self-esteem women with too much money) get whatever happens to them. I don't feel sorry for her at all.

Say what?

Hey, wait... You mean there are risks involved in having someone carve up your perfectly functional face? Why the hell don't they tell us about stuff like that beforehand?

Complications are a statistical fact but...

One eyebrow markedly higher than the other?! That's pure fuckup.

Back in 1995 I decided not to have laser eye surgery because the success rate was 71%, which struck me as pretty bad.

Nowadays I can't even find information on the success rate, I've googled like mad only to find various articles saying they don't keep track of these statistics. Of course, now I definitely won't have the surgery. This sort of information needs to be out there, I congratulate this woman.

Surgeon takes big risk, gets big profit.

Nobody has pointed out yet the economics?

The surgeon is playing the game: he took her money and accepted the risk to turn a profit. His clients are of a particular type, with certain needs, expectations. The type that get elective surgery and then sue if they don't like the results. If he was doing work for the poor in Venezuela correcting deformities then his chances at getting sued over bullshit is zero. But he is playing craps with upper class hags and so he takes his chances. I don't feel sorry for either of them, I hope they both get what they want, and what they deserve.

Personally, his job sucks, and I'm surprised it's even viable. If he did do "very subtle" changes, she would have paid all that money for nothing? She would have felt cheated, not being able to tell a difference. So he was under pressure to do something! (fast forward to Michael Jackson)

So many things can and do go wrong with this stuff, and patient's expectations and surgeon's promises are always unrealistic. Don't tell me about how advanced it is, it's not far from a goddamn auto mechanic. It's almost like you should be lucky to come out alive after surgery, especially elective.

New career

The website contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert, who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.

I hear she's now getting work as a Joan Rivers look-a-like.

link to ruling

http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2 007/c050766.html [findlaw.com]

Her website

I didn't see this anywhere else, so forgive me if it's already been posted. Ms. Gilbert's website can be found here [mysurgerynightmare.com]. It's not that great, but it does have a couple of before and after photos. Maybe some of you web design guys can do a little pro bono work for her.

Before & After

Before, Booooring.

After, SmileX!

Thank you, Joker!

She won the right?

Is this supposed to make me feel good? What kind of fucked up country do we live in where we have to "win the right" to criticize somebody? Also, tomorrow I'm going to court to "win the right" to continue breathing.

What usually happens?

"... the surgery left her with ... a surprised look permanently affixed to her face."

I'd say about half the facelift's I've ever seen left the person with a permanently surprised look on their face.

On a positive note, at least she'll always look happy about whatever crappy christmas gifts she gets...
SO: *hands her pretty wrapped box*
Her (opening package containing a bowling ball with the name 'Homer' on it): *surprised look*
SO: "I knew you'd love it!"

Or whenever her SO cooks dinner...
SO: "Look, Honey, I made pimento/broccoli meatloaf!"
Her: *surprised look*
SO: "I knew you'd love it!"

Doctor jots into her chart

... "difficult"

I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

After all, Sykes does mean "shit-head" in Tenctonese.

Who's your Daddy

The ruling won't help; she's hosted on GoDaddy.

PoorPatientCompliance.com

I want to build that site.... if you don't do what the doctor says this is what will happen to you. Don't wear the binder after a breast augmentation, you get lopsided breasts. Don't take care of your incision, you get scars and/or infection. Bad outcomes from surgery happen to the best surgeons often b/c patients don't follow the instructions.

main link stale; include article next time?

Seems like the link in the main article is already invalid. Somehow the parallel of attempting to point to a specific grain of sand on a desert sand dune comes to mind...
-o-

Re:IMHO She looks fine.

The only reason she looks surprised is because her eyes are open so wide.

That's precisely the effect that she seems to be complaining about. Apparently, it's a side-effect of the surgery, and not something that she's feigning.