A&K Journal
Complication and Limitation Periods in Aesthetic Procedures
Although procedures such as fillers, botulinum toxin and mesotherapy are described colloquially as “beauty treatments”, in law they constitute medical interventions. Recent Turkish Ministry of Health regulation of certified training in aesthetic and cosmetic applications shows the field being tied ever more closely to professional competence and healthcare rules.
Not every complication is malpractice
Infection, asymmetry, tissue loss, vascular occlusion, visual impairment, allergic reaction or permanent scarring following a procedure do not in themselves establish fault. Foreseeable but unavoidable outcomes arising despite compliance with medical standards may be assessed as complications. By contrast, inadequate pre-procedure assessment, use of the wrong product or dose, injection into the wrong site, failure to respond to warning signs in time, failure to refer the patient to an appropriate centre, or absence of informed consent point to medical malpractice rather than complication. A signed complication form does not release the practitioner from liability for a negligent procedure or for failing to manage a complication. Invasive procedures may not be performed in beauty salons or by persons without independent authority to carry them out.
There is no single limitation period
What becomes time-barred is not the complication but the claim brought because of it, and the applicable period depends on the nature of the legal relationship. The Turkish Court of Cassation generally treats interventions promising a specific aesthetic outcome as contracts for work, while procedures where only medical diligence is undertaken fall under agency provisions. Depending on the claim, five-year periods, the special periods in Article 478 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, or a twenty-year period in cases of gross fault may be discussed. Where defective service is alleged, consumer legislation provides a two-year period from performance; in tort, two years from knowledge of the damage and the responsible party, and ten years from the act.
Late-emerging harm does not always restart the clock. Generalisations such as “it was a complication, so there is no liability” or “years have passed, so no claim can be made” are legally incorrect. The practitioner's authority, the place of the procedure, the outcome promised, informed consent, the product used, the management of the complication and the time the damage became known must all be assessed together.
Full text. This page presents an English abstract. The complete article is published in Turkish: Read the full Turkish article →