• Assessment, dosing rationale, injection technique, anatomical considerations, and the management of toxin‑related complications.
• Evaluation of adverse outcomes such as ptosis, asymmetry, unintended muscle weakness, and treatment failure, and in determining whether practitioner technique, product handling, and consent processes met accepted clinical and professional standards.
• Counterfeit and unlicensed aesthetic products, including the identification of inappropriate, substandard, or illegally sourced materials used in treatment.

• A clinical background spanning assessment, treatment planning, complication management, and the evaluation of practitioner competence in these modalities.
• Highly experienced in recognising adverse events and managing complex filler‑related complications
• Assessment of  treatment techniques, product selection, and aftercare to meet accepted professional standards.
• Knowledge of HA rheology, injection anatomy, and biostimulator mechanisms of action informs her detailed and evidence‑based medico‑legal opinions.

• Adverse outcomes such as excessive inflammation, infection, tissue necrosis, contour irregularities, nerve irritation, and prolonged pain or swelling.
• Treatment technique and anatomical accuracy, including injection depth, distribution, volume, and adherence to manufacturer and regulatory guidance.
• Product suitability and procurement, assessing whether the chosen agent was licensed, authentic, and appropriate for the indication.
• Consent processes, including disclosure of risks, expected outcomes, treatment limitations, and the potential need for multiple sessions.
• Aftercare and complication management, evaluating timeliness, appropriateness, escalation, and documentation of clinical decisions.
• Practitioner competence and record‑keeping, including training, procedural notes, and compliance with professional standards

• Detailed evaluation of the clinical decision‑making, procedural technique, and post‑treatment management that may have contributed to the outcome.
• Assessment of whether the practitioner recognised early signs of complication, implemented appropriate interventions, escalated care when indicated, and documented their actions to an acceptable professional standard.

• Forensic analysis of causation, clinical decision‑making, and adherence to professional standards of practice. This encompasses the evaluation of treatment records, consent processes, product selection, injection technique, post‑procedure care, and the timeliness and appropriateness of complication management

• Evaluating whether practitioners obtained valid, informed consent in line with professional, regulatory, and legal standards, including the adequacy of risk disclosure, treatment alternatives, post‑procedure expectations, and documentation.

Evaluation of :

• Whether the prescriber met legal, regulatory, and professional requirements, including compliance with the Human Medicines Regulations, NMC/GMC prescribing standards, and relevant national guidance
•  The adequacy of the clinical assessment, including history‑taking, examination, identification of contraindications, and justification for prescribing
•  The appropriateness of remote prescribing, delegation to non‑prescribing practitioners, and the safeguards in place to ensure patient safety
•  The quality of the consent process, including disclosure of risks, alternatives, off‑label use, and product‑specific considerations
•  Record‑keeping and documentation, including prescribing notes, batch traceability, aftercare instructions, and evidence of safety‑netting
•  The prescriber’s response to complications, including timeliness, escalation, and adherence to accepted standards of care

• Assessment of scope of practice, including whether the practitioner’s actions were consistent with their training, qualifications, and regulatory permissions.
• Analysis of clinical judgement and decision‑making, including recognition of limitations, risk assessment, and the appropriateness of seeking advice or escalating care.
• Consideration of delegation and supervision, evaluating whether tasks were delegated safely, appropriately, and in line with NMC expectations for accountability.
• Review of prescribing practice, including assessment, diagnosis, prescribing rationale, delegation to non‑prescribers, and compliance with legal and professional standards.
• Evaluation of record‑keeping, including accuracy, completeness, contemporaneous documentation, and whether records support defensible practice.
• Assessment of escalation and aftercare, including timeliness, appropriateness, and adherence to national guidance and recognised complication‑management protocols.
• Analysis of professional behaviour, including communication, consent processes, respect for patient autonomy, and adherence to ethical and regulatory frameworks

• Compliance with regulatory and professional obligations, including adherence to NMC/GMC codes, national guidance, and relevant legislation.
• Clinical governance structures, such as incident reporting, audit processes, quality assurance mechanisms, and the presence (or absence) of effective oversight.
• Risk‑management practices, including patient assessment, consent, complication planning, and safety‑netting.
• Record‑keeping and documentation, evaluating accuracy, completeness, contemporaneity, and whether records support defensible practice.
• Supervision, delegation, and accountability, including whether practitioners operated within their scope of practice and received appropriate oversight.
• Escalation pathways, including timeliness, appropriateness, and adherence to recognised complication‑management protocols.
• Understanding of limitations, assessing whether practitioners recognised when to seek advice, refer, or decline treatment

• Identification of inappropriate, substandard, or illegally sourced materials used in treatment. 
• Providing detailed analysis of product provenance, regulatory compliance, batch traceability, and whether the practitioner exercised appropriate due diligence in procurement and storage.
• The clinical and safety implications of using counterfeit, unlicensed, or non‑CE/UKCA‑marked products
• Whether the practitioner’s sourcing, verification, and record‑keeping met regulatory and professional expectations
• The role of product authenticity in the development of complications or treatment failure
• The adequacy of disclosure within the consent process regarding product type, licensing status, and associated risks
• Whether the use of such products constitutes a breach of duty, contributed to harm, or impacted prognosis