EVIDENCE, EXPERT TESTIMONY, AND SUBJECTIVITY: THE LIMITS OF TECHNICAL JUDGMENT IN LIABILITY FOR AESTHETIC SURGERIES

Abstract

Considering the increasing complexity of consumer relations in the context of medical services and the consolidated case law of the Superior Court of Justice recognizing that purely aesthetic plastic surgeries constitute an obligation of result, with presumption of fault and shifting of the burden of proof, a relevant issue arises regarding the adequacy of this model in light of the subjective nature of aesthetic harm and the limitations of technical evidence. This scenario is further aggravated by the so-called evidentiary crisis, characterized by the tension between technical (expert) judgment and aesthetic judgment, the latter marked by subjective criteria related to patient satisfaction. The objective is to analyze the impacts of this duality on the civil liability of plastic surgeons, particularly under Consumer Law. To this end, a descriptive study with a qualitative approach is conducted, based on bibliographic review, doctrinal analysis, and examination of case law from the Superior Court of Justice. Thus, it is observed that, although the obligation of result strengthens consumer protection, biological unpredictability and the subjectivity of aesthetic perception limit the ability of expert evidence to objectively establish causation. It is concluded that the current model reveals significant interpretative tensions, indicating the need to rebalance consumer protection and legal certainty in aesthetic medical practice.