NeoGraft Lawsuit Hair Transplant Malpractice

MALPRACTICE LAWSUIT INVOLVING DELEGATION OF FUE
GENEVA, IL. – April 7, 2019
Abstract of Stephen McGlinn vs Chaffoo, Case No. 37-2017-00011463-CU-MM-CTL
By: Robert M. Portman, JD and Megan La Suer, JD, MHA

A surgical hair restoration process utilizing follicular unit excision (FUE) approach, additionally (beforehand) generally known as follicular unit extraction, carried out by unlicensed technicians utilizing a NeoGraft machine has resulted in a lawsuit that highlights the dangers of this hair transplant process. The lawsuit was filed in 2017 within the Superior Court docket of the State of California, County of San Diego, by the affected person, Stephen McGlinn, towards Dr. Richard Chaffoo, MD, alleging medical malpractice in relation to the efficiency of the process. This lawsuit highlights points and considerations concerning the NeoGraft machine getting used to carry out an FUE extraction, significantly if carried out by a person who’s unlicensed, unqualified, and whose scope of apply doesn’t embrace surgical procedure.

Mr. McGlinn visited Dr. Chaffoo for a session after seeing Dr. Chaffoo’s in-flight commercial for the “NeoGraft process.” The grievance alleges that the commercial didn’t clarify that the NeoGraft process was used for follicular unit extractions. McGinn additional alleges that the commercial didn’t disclose whether or not the photographs had been fashions or precise sufferers of Dr. Chaffoo who underwent the process, creating false expectations of success on Mr. McGlinn’s half.

Two months later in June 2015, Mr. McGlinn obtained an FUE hair transplant process with a NeoGraft machine carried out by two of Dr. Chaffoo’s workplace technicians. One technician, a registered nurse, allegedly had 4 years of coaching underneath Dr. Chaffoo on the NeoGraft machine, along with three many years of prior expertise on robotic hair restoration strategies. The opposite technician was a “Neografter,” who was assigned to Dr. Chaffoo’s clinic by way of a placement company. Court docket paperwork make no point out of Dr. Chaffoo ever collaborating in Mr. McGlinn’s process.

After seeing poor ends in hair development and restoration, Mr. McGlinn obtained a second opinion from Dr. Kenneth Williams, a specialist within the remedy of hair loss problems and hair restoration surgical procedure. Dr. Williams knowledgeable Mr. McGlinn that his hair transplant had failed, because of the “actionable negligence” of Dr. Chaffoo and his employees. Dr. Williams contends that Mr. McGlinn’s alleged accidents are because of an improper preliminary examination, improper surgical planning, and failure to supply ample info as a way to present an sufficient knowledgeable consent.

Mr. McGlinn filed a lawsuit in March 2017, alleging that the hair transplant process was “carried out in a fashion beneath the appropriate commonplace or requirements of medical apply.” Mr. McGlinn’s alleged accidents embrace, amongst different issues, hair deformation, scarring, development failure, psychological trauma, and financial damages. Dr. Chaffoo responded that these are generally identified dangers of the sort of hair transplant process.

In a case of medical malpractice, legal responsibility activates three parts: existence of an obligation owed to the plaintiff, breach of that obligation by the defendant, and proof that the breach was the proximate reason behind the plaintiff’s alleged accidents. A plaintiff can solely get well if all three of those parts are proved by a preponderance of the proof. In California, the court docket will look to the precise skilled commonplace, outlined by precise or accepted apply inside a sure career, to find out whether or not a doctor breached the obligation owed to the affected person. This skilled commonplace can solely be established by skilled testimony. Each events have submitted skilled declarations by physicians specializing in hair transplant procedures. Most notably, the skilled witness referred to as by Dr. Chaffoo is Dr. Grant Stevens, a featured doctor on NeoGraft’s web site.

Dr. Williams submitted a declaration on behalf of Mr. McGlinn stating that the usual of care in hair restoration surgical procedure requires that the working surgeon be bodily current throughout surgical procedure as a way to carry out the critical-to-quality steps (CTQS) of the hair transplant process, that are important for a optimistic surgical consequence. Dr. Williams notes that the technicians who carried out the CTQS, administered the anesthesia, and carried out the precise process weren’t licensed to take action. Moreover, these technicians had been required to be underneath the direct supervision of Dr. Chaffoo throughout your complete process. Dr. Williams concludes that as a result of Dr. Chaffoo was not current and the technicians weren’t correctly certified, that the position of grafts and creation of recipient websites in Mr. McGlinn’s scalp had been poorly designed and executed, leading to a failed surgical procedure.

Mr. McGlinn was enticed by an allegedly false and deceptive commercial that created unrealistic expectations for hair restoration success. Though Mr. McGlinn signed an knowledgeable consent doc previous to the process, he alleges that the doc didn’t present, nor did Dr. Chaffoo or his employees clarify, the related info for Mr. McGlinn to totally perceive the process, the doable options, or post-operative expectations primarily based on his superior sample of hair loss and restricted donor hair provide, thus nullifying his capability to supply knowledgeable consent.

Dr. Chaffoo not too long ago filed a movement for abstract judgment in an effort to dismiss the case previous to trial. The movement stipulates that Mr. McGlinn failed to lift a triable problem of fabric reality, failed to indicate how both Dr. Chaffoo or his employees breached the relevant commonplace of care, and that there isn’t any causal connection between Mr. McGlinn’s alleged accidents and the actions of Dr. Chaffoo or his employees. Dr. Chaffoo claimed that Mr. McGlinn’s accidents are because of his personal negligent actions, that Mr. McGlinn was totally knowledgeable concerning the process and outcomes, and that Mr. McGlinn voluntarily and expressly assumed all dangers of the process.

Motions for abstract judgment are usually not profitable in circumstances, akin to this one, the place there are disputed details. Relatively, the case is prone to go to trial if it doesn’t settle. We are going to proceed to watch this litigation and supply updates on any important new developments.

Tips on how to keep away from dishonest docs

Choosing hair transplant docs

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *