The aesthetic medicine market in Poland is growing at a rate of over 10 percent annually. With it, the number of court cases in which patients—often after visiting a clinic advertised by an Instagram influencer—demand compensation for complications following Botox, hyaluronic acid, or mesotherapy treatments is growing. Courts are increasingly defining the line between acceptable procedural risk and medical error.
What is Botox from a legal perspective?
Botulinum toxin (Botox) is an active substance administered by injection, interfering with the integrity of tissues. Courts consistently classify these procedures as medical, not cosmetic, regardless of the name of the clinic performing them. This leads to a number of consequences: the procedure must be performed by a physician or appropriately qualified person, preceded by informed consent from the patient, and documented in the medical record.
As stated by the District Court in Toruń in its judgment of 25 June 2018 (ref. IC 600/15) in a case concerning lip augmentation with hyaluronic acid: "The procedure of increasing the volume of the lips by injecting hyaluronic acid into the lips is an invasive procedure, as it involves breaking the continuity of tissues, which is an indisputable criterion for distinguishing invasive (surgical) procedures from non-invasive (cosmetic) procedures. The procedure in question is, in essence and in its course, a medical procedure."
Based on the case law analyzed, the following categories of infringements can be distinguished, which give rise to liability for damages.
1. Lack of informed consent from the patient - the most common mistake
This is the absolute leader in Polish courts. A doctor or cosmetologist is liable even if the procedure was performed technically correctly if they failed to inform the patient about possible complications. In case file reference V ACa 153/17, the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, in its judgment of November 14, 2017, clearly stated that the lack of proper information about the risk of complications and the lack of post-procedure supervision makes the action unlawful, regardless of whether the procedure itself was performed in accordance with medical practice: "If consent is deemed ineffective due to failure to provide or improper provision of information, the medical act in question should be deemed unlawful, because the patient's consent to the procedure nullifies the unlawfulness of the direct violation of health or bodily integrity, but also signifies acceptance of the risk of the procedure and its assumption (acting at one's own risk)." The court awarded damages covering medical costs and compensation for pain and mental suffering.
A particularly high standard applies to aesthetic procedures. In its judgment of the District Court for Warsaw-Mokotów in Warsaw of February 6, 2017 (ref. XVI C 1384/15) concerning a cosmetic procedure, the court explicitly emphasized: "Therefore, it should be emphasized that the mere verbal consent of the plaintiff to undergo the procedure, prompted by a proposal from the person performing the procedure, does not eliminate the unlawfulness if the plaintiff did not previously obtain detailed knowledge of the course and possible consequences of the procedure. It should also be clearly emphasized that in the case of cosmetic procedures, the obligation to provide information is broader than in the case of life-saving procedures." Having the patient sign a standard, general consent form is not enough. The form must enumerate the foreseeable complications of the procedure—in a language the patient understands.
2. The procedure was performed by an unqualified person
Courts are taking this error particularly seriously, and since the beginning of 2026, the situation has been even more unambiguous than at the date of the judgment discussed below. In the judgment of the District Court in Toruń of June 25, 2018 (ref. IC 600/15), a hyaluronic acid lip augmentation procedure was performed by a clinic employee who had only completed cosmetic courses. Court experts clearly indicated that invasive procedures require medical qualifications. The court awarded PLN 10,000 in compensation and PLN 650 in damages (medical costs), even though after several years the effects of the procedure had largely subsided. Significantly, the plaintiff claimed PLN 50,000, but the court moderated the amount due to the temporary nature of the damage.
On January 23, 2026, the Ministry of Health issued a statement classifying aesthetic and restorative medicine procedures (including botulinum toxin and filler injections) as healthcare services with an increased risk of complications, and not cosmetic services. The statement states that they may only be performed by:
a) specialists in dermatology and venereology or plastic surgery, or
b) other physicians and dentists with the right to practice for an indefinite period who have completed additional training and obtained a certificate in the field of aesthetic and restorative medicine (skill code 028).
The Ministry of Health's announcement excludes cosmetologists, beauticians, and those with professional training—regardless of the number of market certifications they hold. The announcement does not create new law, but rather constitutes an official interpretation by a state authority, which may be cited as evidence in civil cases seeking compensation. Clinics that, after this date, allow Botox treatments to be performed by individuals who do not meet the indicated requirements are acting in a manner inconsistent with the official position of the Ministry of Health—which strengthens the injured patient's legal position.
The amounts awarded for cosmetic procedure errors are typically lower than those for serious surgical errors (which can reach hundreds of thousands of zlotys), but when the effects on the face are permanent and visible, courts do not hesitate to increase them on appeal. The duration of the effects, the patient's age, and the impact on professional and social life are key factors.
Courts dismiss claims when the clinic demonstrates that:
a) the patient was reliably informed about the risks, including the complication that occurred;
b) the procedure was performed in accordance with current medical knowledge, and the complication is an acceptable risk and not an error;
c) the patient did not follow post-operative recommendations, thereby contributing to the harm.
However—and this is important—the burden of proof for these circumstances always rests with the clinic, not the patient. Furthermore, the patient should be aware that:
a) Botox treatment is a medical procedure and is subject to full protection under the Patient Rights Act;
b) has the right to request personal confirmation of the qualifications of the person performing the procedure;
c) the lack of signed consent or its general nature works to the patient's advantage in a legal dispute;
d) claims may be made directly from the clinic's liability insurance insurer.
Lawsuits involving Botox and related aesthetic procedures reveal one common denominator: clinics lose not because the procedure went wrong, but because the patient was unaware it could go wrong. Lack of accurate pre-procedure information, incomplete consent forms, and lack of medical documentation are three errors that courts consider, regardless of whether the doctor acted properly. At the same time, case law protects clinics operating professionally: if the patient was informed of the risks and consented to them, and the complication falls within the foreseeable risk of the procedure, the lawsuit will be dismissed.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of May 6, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
