A dermatology clinic in Guarulhos (Greater São Paulo) must pay compensation to a client who suffered burns after undergoing a laser hair removal procedure. The compensation amount was set by the Court at R$ 25,000 to cover moral and aesthetic damages, and R$ 600 for material damages. It is possible to appeal
According to the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo, the patient, who asked not to be identified, underwent laser hair removal in the region of the upper lip and between the eyebrows. However, after the six sessions indicated by the clinic, he did not get the result he expected. Thus, the company offered extra sessions, with no additional value.
According to lawyers Davi de Castro Braga and Mayara Santos Diniz Porfirio, who defend the woman, in the seventh session, “she complained of unusual pain and had the answer that the treatment was painful and would be worth it.”
According to Braga, a week later, in the eighth session, the doctor insisted on applying the laser, under protest of pain in the region. The patient then, says the lawyer, went to a dermatologist outside the clinic, who identified second-degree burns on her skin that would have been caused by the laser.
The decision of judge Lincoln Antônio Andrade de Moura, of the 10th Civil Court of Guarulhos, for the indemnity of R$ 25,000 was upheld by the 4th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice, after the clinic’s appeal.
The establishment’s defense claims to have filed the appeal for judging that the expertise of the case was not carried out properly. According to the lawyer representing the clinic, Johnni Flavio Brasilino Alves, the judge appointed a judicial expert to assess the injuries, but the expert examination was not carried out and the sentence was given based on the medical report presented by the patient.
“Both for the first-degree judge and the second-degree judge, the technical report is fundamental, it is the most important evidence they have”, says Alves.
According to the lawyer, the clinic has a legal period of 15 days to analyze whether it wants to file another appeal against the TJ-SP decision. Alves says that this decision to appeal or not will still be discussed with the clinic.
“The company is not trying to delay or gain time, even because it is not interesting, it is only fair that it has the expertise”, explains the lawyer.
The client’s defense states that the judge, based on the evidence presented, can judge the case in advance if he is convinced, respecting the adversary system and the full defense.
“The judge understood that the evidence in the case records, the medical record prepared by the clinic’s own doctor, added to the lack of interest in the expertise on the part of the clinic, since the advance payment of R$ 2,000 to the expert who would conduct the expertise was not enough for the trial of the case at that time. Even to avoid procedural delays, since the clinic used the available resources not to pay for the expertise”, defends the lawyer of the plaintiff.
Regarding what the defense said, the clinic’s lawyer stated that “the absence of a technical opinion from those who have medical knowledge in litigation, generates insecurity and can lead to a hasty judgment that is difficult to repair”.