Quantcast

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Friday, March 29, 2024

Doctor denies liability in suit alleging injuries from cosmetic vein treatment

Lawsuits
Medical malpractice 08

A patient alleging she suffered blisters and hair loss during a cosmetic vein treatment responded to her doctor’s affirmative defenses, in which he denies liability.

Mary Vesci alleges she saw Dr. Kevin Bell, her primary doctor, and nurse Stephanie Bell on Aug. 10, 2015, for various vein and cosmetic issues.

Vesci claims he was told by Stephanie Bell that she could treat prominent veins on her temporal region and would inject a sclerosing agent into the temporal artery.

However, Vesci alleges the arterial injection caused damage to her head, resulting in blisters, sores, skin loss, hair loss and permanent scarring and hair loss.

Vesci alleges the defendants failed to appropriately treat her when they knew or should have known of the injury sustained, failed to recognize the errors of the injection, failed to have a medical doctor present when medical procedures were performed and failed to obtain informed consent from the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs seek a judgment in an amount greater than jurisdictional limits, plus court costs and any other relief the court deems just.

Kevin Bell answered the complaint on April 25 through attorneys Dawne Zupanci and Leslie Odom of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville.

He argues that any alleged injuries “were the result of some conduct other than Defendant’s conduct, which conduct was the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and/or damages.”

The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendant’s affirmative defenses on May 7 through attorney G. Michael Stewart of Simmons Hanly Conroy in Alton.

They neither admit nor deny the allegations, but demand strict proof thereof.

Stephanie Bell answered the complaint on June 15, 2017, denying liability. She argues that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of any alleged injuries.

Defendant Multi-Care Specialists answered the complaint on July 6, 2017, also arguing that any alleged injuries “are the direct and proximate result of plaintiff’s own comparative negligence, comparative fault, contributory negligence, and/or contributory fault…”

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-451

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News