Expert Insight. Unbiased Testimony.

Expert Witness in Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures

Nurse Julie has extensive knowledge about all aspects of non-surgical cosmetic procedures, assisting law firms and offering specialised testimonials and credible evidence in malpractice lawsuits by dissatisfied patients. With a special interest in medical negligence and personal injury, her areas of expertise are:

BOTULINUM TOXIN A FOR COSMETIC USE   |  BOTULINUM TOXIN A FOR MEDICAL INDICATIONS

HYALURONIC ACID DERMAL FILLERS   |  TEAR TROUGH FILLERS |  LIP FILLERS 

CHEMICAL PEELS | FIBROBLAST TREATMENT | LASER DEVICES | TATTOO REMOVAL

MANAGING COMPLICATIONS | NON-SURGICAL FACIAL AESTHETICS |   LIPOLYSIS MACHINE

Key areas of expertise include:

  • Threads: Investigating complications such as infection, suboptimal results, or technical issues.

  • Vascular Occlusion: Evaluating dermal filler cases involving occlusion, causation, and duty of care breaches.

  • Delayed Reactions to Dermal Fillers: Addressing immune or inflammatory responses, including nodules and swelling.

  • Breast and Vaginal Dermal Fillers: Assessing off-label use, risks, and regulatory compliance.

  • Illegal Botulinum Toxin: Investigating harm from unlicensed products and practitioner responsibility.

  • Breach of Duty and Causation: Analysing whether accepted standards of practice were met and linking actions to outcomes.

  • Duty of Care: Examining failures in patient assessment, consent, and aftercare.

Julie welcomes new instructions from a variety of sources including independent solicitors. Appointments are usually available for clients requiring a condition and prognosis report in Bristol and Cardiff within two weeks of instruction. A completed report is returned within a further four weeks. Clinical negligence (breach and liability) reports are completed within a similar time frame.

Julie is also happy to provide a screening report prior to engagement as a Part 35 Expert.

aesthetic expert witness covering Bristol, Bath and South Wales

“A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.” McNair J in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]

Relevance: This quote introduced the Bolam Test, setting the standard for medical negligence by linking it to professional opinion.

Legal Standards Across the UK & Ireland

Ireland – Medico-Legal Test
Dunne v. National Maternity Hospital [1989] IR 91

The Dunne Principles govern medical negligence in Ireland and state the following:

  • A practitioner is not guilty of negligence if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of skilled medical professionals in that field, even if others disagree.

  • The court must be satisfied that the practice relied upon has a logical and rational basis.

  • An error in diagnosis or treatment is not necessarily negligent if it is one that a competent practitioner could make. However, negligence arises if no competent practitioner would have made the same error.

  • If there is a general and approved practice that is not followed, the practitioner must justify why they departed from it.

Summary: Similar to Bolam and Bolitho in England, but explicitly stated through Dunne v NMH.

Scotland – Medico-Legal Test
Hunter v. Hanley [1955] SC 200

The Hunter v. Hanley test is applied in Scotland to assess professional negligence, including medical cases. It requires:

  • There must be a usual and normal practice.

  • The practitioner did not adopt that usual practice.

  • The course of action taken is one that no professional person of ordinary skill would have taken if acting with ordinary care.

Summary: while Hunter v. Hanley is broadly similar to the Bolam test, it is specific to Scotland and focuses on deviation from standard practice in a way that no reasonable practitioner would.

Comparison with England & Wales

  • England & Wales: Uses the Bolam and Bolitho tests (Bolam v Friern Hospital; Bolitho v City & Hackney HA) which establish that negligence occurs if a practitioner’s actions are not supported by a responsible body of medical opinion or lack logical defensibility.

  • Ireland: The Dunne Principles (Dunne v. NMH, 1989) function similarly to Bolam and Bolitho but are expressly established under Irish law.

  • Scotland: The Hunter v. Hanley test (Hunter v. Hanley, 1955) requires proof of usual practice, deviation from that practice, and that the deviation was unreasonable.