Abstract

Dermatologic, cosmetic, and aesthetic procedures have become increasingly widespread, largely driven by rising aesthetic expectations and the expanding influence of social media. Although these interventions are primarily performed to enhance physical appearance rather than to treat disease, they inherently carry risks of complications and unsatisfactory outcomes, which may give rise to medicolegal disputes between patients and physicians. In this retrospective, descriptive study, high court decisions concerning dermatologic, cosmetic, and aesthetic procedures were analyzed to evaluate judicial approaches to physician liability, informed consent, and the distinction between complications and malpractice. Judicial decisions issued within the last ten years were retrieved from the official websites of the High Courts of the Republic of Türkiye and the Lexpera jurisprudence database using predefined keywords related to cosmetic and dermatologic interventions. A total of 54 high court decisions were included, encompassing cases involving both physicians and unauthorized non-physician practitioners. The decisions were examined with respect to violations of advertising and promotion regulations, deficiencies in informed consent, breach of the duty of medical care, dissatisfaction with aesthetic outcomes, and the imposition of legal or administrative sanctions. The analysis revealed that violations of advertising regulations and inadequate informed consent were the most frequently identified legal deficiencies. Procedures performed by unauthorized individuals were associated with substantially higher rates of legal violations, claims for non-pecuniary damages, and administrative penalties compared with those performed by physicians. In physician-related cases, the scope and adequacy of informed consent emerged as the primary determinant of liability, even when adverse outcomes were accepted as medically recognized complications. High courts consistently characterized dermatologic and cosmetic procedures as contracts for work (contracts of result), imposing a stricter liability framework on physicians. These findings highlight the importance of comprehensive, procedure-specific informed consent, adherence to professional standards, and the performance of aesthetic procedures exclusively by authorized physicians to enhance patient safety and reduce legal risk.

Key words: Dermatology, cosmetic procedures, aesthetic interventions, malpractice, Supreme Court decisions