Buffaloboy

On 2/14/2024 at 11:44 PM, general-etwan said:

I did not. They never responded back to me with an opening for a video consultation. Pittella is booked way too far out for my liking too and his cost is out of my range. I think he’s doing great work. Just not going to be an option for me. 

Isn't Sethi about the same as Pitella now? (if you can even get him to agree to do it)

Lookin good.

Your hair looks amazing @mnvbrtn

17 minutes ago, Mike888888 said:

Hi all,

Thanks again for all comments.

I have still not yet heard back from the original clinic, but I have booked in for a consultation with Dr Ragu Reddy in London in 2 weeks.

I have contacted a “no win no fee” law firm who said they would take a look, so for now I will just leave it with them to make their judgement.

I really just want my money back at this point to put towards a proper repair with a decent surgeon.

I will update again when I have anything new to add.

Thanks again to all who commented, it has been very helpful.

M

They will likely turn the case down, as there is not enough incentive for them to take the case (the settlement would be too small). But good on for you for taking that step and checking.

I'm really sorry you're going through this and hope that you are able to find a new surgeon that will fix your hairline. Take a look through the review forum. I like to sort by "most replies", as that often brings up the best (most successful) cases with lots of data points.

Then create a short list of surgeons you found from your thread research and make consultation appointments. Ask questions of this forums top members too. Melvin is a wealth of knowledge, as is Gatsby and a few others. They always seem happy to give advice, so if you're questioning if a surgeon should be on your short list, ask!

Keep your head up.

13 minutes ago, HappyMan2021 said:

a lot of lawyer talk just to agree with what we all said from the get to, that a lawsuit is not worth it.

No. You're moving the goal posts now. 

You stated: "I doubt you have an actual/true/legitimate legal claim that would hold up in a court of law. If you signed any sort of patient documents/claims prior to surgery, it pretty much kills your case."

Which is nonsense and I responded telling you that OP does have an actual, true, and legitimate legal claim and it very well could hold up in a court of law, and pre-surgery waiver documents would not indemnify the surgeon. 

That is a completely different argument than what you have shifted to, which is "its not worth it to pursue the case". I would have agreed with that from the beginning. You switched from "You have no case" to "its not worth it". 

13 minutes ago, HappyMan2021 said:

The barrier to become a lawyer is really not that high as long as someone has the time commitment and money for law school. 

And can score well on the LSAT. But I do agree.

8 minutes ago, jjalay said:

This is an example from ireland:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-wins-70-000-damages-over-botched-hair-transplant-1.699720

The patient sued the clinic and won the trial and 70K compensation for the damage this doctor has caused him. If you search the internet you will find many cases like this one.

Yeah it’s not uncommon. The only uncommon part is when they reach trial. Most get settlements.

Here is a gentleman who won 45k for an asymmetrical hairline.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/singer-wins-45-000-after-bad-hair-day-qvknf7cp2

43 minutes ago, BackFromTheBrink said:

Are you basing your recommendations or US or UK law, or don't you think the differences would be important in such a case?

I’m not barred in the UK, so i’m speaking from my jurisdiction.

And to be abundantly clear, I am not providing any recommendations. I am simply stating how these cases typically go:

Consult > Medical records request > Filing and service of complaint > Ins Con will ask for summary judgment on the grounds of jurisdiction or relevance or any other cause they can think of > Request is denied > Discovery with potential subpoena of records if not provided earlier > Insurance company will often negotiate a settlement at this stage > If no settlement, then we move on to pre-trial motions where they will attempt to delay as long as possible > Trial.

Getting to trial in malpractice cases is exceedingly rare. They are almost always settled prior. When they do go to trial, it’s because the case is veryyyyy weak and they are extremely confident they will win. And despite this, they still lose close to 40% of them. But they don’t like to go trial for the following reasons: 

1) Juries are typically sympathetic to medical claims.

2) The surgeon does not want the negative publicity that a trial brings.

3) The insurance company does not want the risk matrix that accompanies a jury (at least in my state) deciding damages.

I mentioned the eyelid case above, but a former colleague I spoke with this morning also mentioned a case he had with a woman who had a small cyst on her back. Non-malignant and not medically necessary, but was unsightly, she chose to have it removed. The surgeon caused a scar that was ugly enough that they filed suit. She won (settled). The scar was just above the bikini on the back, causing others to be able to see it.

All that being said, I don’t recommend a lawsuit in this situation. I would push for a refund and be on with my life. There simply isn’t enough meat on this bone for it to be worth it. My responses in this thread have to do with what is possible - not what I recommend the OP do. There are people posting in this thread whom have very little grasp of the law, and I was simply informing them of the realities.

2 hours ago, Al - Moderator said:

Lawsuits like this are extremely hard to win.

Uh, these hardly ever go to court because they are typically settled with the insurance company before trial.

Of course they try to delay and motion away the case first.

The cases that make it to court are the ones in which they (the surgeon side) believe they have an excellent chance at winning. And they STILL lose close to 40% of the time. 

3 hours ago, asterix0 said:

Yes sadly this should be in the risk calculus for patients before they decide to take the plunge. Everybody thinks they can beat the odds. Truly there is nothing that can be done because even if everyone on these forums stood on their roofs and warned against hair mills and scams, you would still have people go and roll the dice, probably enough to keep business rolling for quite a long time.  

 

Absolutely. Which is why I am such an advocate on these matters.

1 hour ago, Al - Moderator said:

That would pretty much be everyone who goes through a hair transplant. Even all the ones that come out great, the patient usually goes through mental anguish and has to cover his head for months.

Certainly you understand the distinction between normal post-surgery recovery issues (which is expected), and the mental anguish and suffering due to negligent care leading to semi-permanent harm (which is generally addressed through compensable damages).

Know what one of the top malpractice insurance policies are? Breast augmentation. Know why? Because they’re sued all the time. Nearly 35% of all claims for PS.

1 hour ago, Al - Moderator said:

That is only the case with medically necessary procedures. It's very different for elective procedures.

No, it’s not only the case with medically necessary procedures. Not only was I personally involved in a case with a young woman who had cosmetic surgery on her eyelid (zero medical necessity) and obtained first hand knowledge of the intricacies of these cases, but I also have precedent from other cases I can show. It’s 2am and I am on my phone but I can post them tomorrow. Unfortunately I am not allowed to give the outcome of the eyelid case but use your imagination.

I could show cause a million different ways with cosmetic surgery. Everything from §6530 which defines professional misconduct to include practicing with incompetence on a single occasion or on multiple occasions, gross negligence, gross incompetence, and negligence on multiple occasions in practicing a profession.

Or I could go to § 2805 and argue lack of informed consent. As OP said, “I didn't know any different“. The provider did not provide the patient with enough information (and at times provided the patient with FALSE INFORMATION) about his skills, the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a procedure that a reasonable person would want to know to make an informed decision. Of course, even if he had informed consent, state supreme courts have ruled that malpractice rises above this and makes it inadmissible.

etc

3 hours ago, FSLONAL said:

YodaHead,

My surgery dates are end of June 2025.  Of course, I asked for anything earlier and could travel on short notice.

They are asking for $6,000 USD to reserve these dates.  Seems unusual as I've heard no one mentioning paying upfront to reserve their dates that far out.

What is your experience with paying any money to reserve your date/s?
Thank you

Wow.

The $250 that Eugenix charged sounds like a deal now haha.

1 hour ago, HappyMan2021 said:

can you explain this more? I don't know much about the law so just curious. So OP is expected to take home 225,000 euros for his 2500 euro surgery?

3k contingency fee/225000 euros = 1.3% contingency fee. 

It is common for contingency fees to be this low?

thanks. 

30(ish)% is common.

$25,000 * 30% = $7,500.

Then there is all the filing fees, court fees, documents, paralegal pay, etc, etc, etc. These add up really, really, really fast. Plus 40% tax.

The attorney would be lucky to walk away with 3k. Whch, if they spent even 1 month on your case, would be under $20 per hour pay. Which is why even most PI attorneys wont take a contingency case that is expected to be less than a 300k judgement.

Edited to say: I’m talking about firms. Maybe some local private attorney with a single shingle may take a contingency with lesser amount but no reputable firm would.

20 minutes ago, HappyMan2021 said:

 

so you're saying a lawyer wouldn't take this on contingency? I wonder why not....

Real life is not the movies. Most attorneys don't work on contingency. PI is really the only branch where you see it at more than 30% of the occurrence, and that is typically 300k+ cases.

In addition to this, the winning would be too small. Let's say he wins $25,000. That's a refund for services, plus 8x punitive/emotional damage. The attorney would take home less than 3k after taxes and fees. 

Of course, this is common sense for anyone who has worked in law.

2 hours ago, HappyMan2021 said:

I doubt you have an actual/true/legitimate legal claim that would hold up in a court of law. If you signed any sort of patient documents/claims prior to surgery, it pretty much kills your case. I'm certain it would have mentioned something along the lines of "this is a voluntary cosmetic surgery, results not guaranteed, etc."

I can tell you've never been to law school.

You can not perform a terrible medical procedure and then hide behind a clause in a pre-surgery document. It doesn't work that way. Nor are you only entitled to compensation if you are permanently disabled or disfigured. 

The mental anguish alone would find favor in many courts. As would the requirement to wear head covering to hide the the terrible angles that are going the wrong way. 

The reason that many surgeons get away with this is:

1) It's much more difficult to bring suit against a foreign doctor. 

2) Most people do not have the funds in order to pursue this long term. The clinic likely has an attorney on retainer to delay, motion, delay, motion, etc. This eats away at a plaintiffs funds and many simply drop the case as they run out of money. However, a plaintiff with deep pockets can pin a surgeon to the wall if they can wait until it eventually hits a court room. 

3 hours ago, GeneralNorwood said:

Yeah, but Eugenix had so many bad results. It got to the point that even Melvin emphasized "We don't recommend clinics, we recommend surgeons"

It is really misleading for people that owners of the clinic are recommended, but the rest of the clinic is not. It's as if the boss isn't responsible for the performance of his employees. 

No guys, in real world the boss takes the blame for this employees, because he is running the show.

Especially when that boss is too big for his britches and won't even do surgeries anymore (unless you're rich or famous).

5 hours ago, Berba11 said:

 

+1 for Dr Ball as well by the way. Waiting times will be shorter and no need to navigate flights post-op.

I read this quickly at first and I thought your last sentence said “no need to navigate FIGHTS post-op” 😂.

Which wouldn’t make sense in any other thread, but in this thread would make complete sense.

1 hour ago, Gatsby said:

With the greatest of respect @Buffaloboy, regardless of the surgeon/clinic the angle of down/backwards is exactly what I have, @MazAB, @Zoomster, @Bandit90, @SLA has many other patients from a variety of surgeons. Temples points if performed incorrectly are better left out from a surgery as they become very obvious. In no way am I saying you should go to Eugenix or any other surgeon. Temple points are an art more than just a procedure. All the best!

Understood and well said.

But it’s not surprising that all those folks you tagged have temples pointing back and down, right? Since all those people went to Eugenix where they point temples back and down.

That being said - On someone who naturally has hair that goes that direction, it looks wonderful. Your hair looks amazing, for example. But the problem is when they have a patient whose hair doesn’t naturally go back and down. Then it looks like OP’s hair.

27 minutes ago, MazAB said:

Angling downward and backward is definitely the correct approach for temple points.

Respectfully I disagree.

THIS is what it looks like when you angle down and back when the hair is going the opposite direction. 



Now if the persons temple hair DOES naturally lay backwards, then yeah, angle it backwards. But if it does NOT, then:

Here is an old photo of me, with perfect temples. Notice how the hair is angled down - in the same direction as my side hair. Not back.

2 hours ago, Knightrider said:

10 months completed.. not happy with the final results.. won’t recommend Eugenix.. will be contacting Dr Gur for another HT for the density and crown area. 

Very sorry to hear that. I could tell with your 5 month pics that it was not heading in a good direction.

Do you mind posting final pics? It would help us all.

This is the worst i've ever seen.

I give you much kudos on having the patience and fortitude to not swing on that doc.

On 5/7/2022 at 6:29 PM, digi23 said:

It was pretty easy to spot at Day 10 that the temples would not look good, I had the same problem with mine. Transplanted hair is supposed to follow the directions of the native hair, the directions can vary but the Dr need to follow it for it to look natural. Ontop of that, they used wrong hair, they used to thick grafts.

Black = Transplanted hair

White = Native

This is very, very concerning.

So concerning that I messaged Eugenix and asked if they are still doing temples this way or if they fixed their methods to start following the direction of the hair.

Unfortunately they responded and said they are still angling temples down and back.

This tells me that they don’t learn from their mistakes and are stubborn. I think i’m going to cancel my surgery with them 😔.

7 minutes ago, hongkongfue said:

@Buffaloboy I don’t think it was a case of not maintaining the transplanted hair from 18 years ago but more of an issue of continued hair loss of native hair. Dr. Wong said the transplanted hair held up pretty well.  With diffuse thinning and NW 6 and having started losing my hair younger in life I just kept losing.  Regretfully I had also stopped taking fin several years ago.  Likely not a wise move.  If I can go another 18 years in between I’ll be good. Ha. 

Ahh, ok. Thanks for the explanation!

4 hours ago, IceBergg said:

Another thing I’d like to point out is the way the transplanted hair is blended into my native hair on the right vs left side. 

If you look back at previous photos you can see that the transplanted hair on the right side of my head was blended seamlessly into the native hair. While on the left side of my head they left a small gap. At this point with the hair sprouting that gap is noticeable. 

Another gap at the lateral!?

I don’t understand how Eugenix keeps making this mistake.

I would usually say “give it time”, but this has happened so often with Eugenix that I feel that it’s likely just an issue they can’t figure out.

The hair line is definitely lower on the left (your right) as well. Maybe that was to make it seem more natural/not perfect?

Other than that, your hair is looking great though. You look like a new man! I wouldn’t worry about the donor.

Looks great @Singh1276