Media
Slater and Gordon client seeking damages over liposuction surgery warns others about medical marketing on social media
Posted on 02 Oct 2025
A client of Slater and Gordon Lawyers who is bringing a claim against three medical professionals and the Lanzer Clinic wants people to be cautious about the marketing of surgical procedures on social media.
A so-called “TikTok doctor”, his psychologist wife, and the doctor and the clinic he worked for – the Lanzer Clinic – are the subject of a damages claim by a 30-year-old woman who underwent liposuction surgery.
The Defendants in the claim are Dr Daniel Lanzer, the Lanzer Clinic, Dr Daniel Aronov, and his wife, psychologist Candice Wainstein.
Slater and Gordon Senior Legal Counsel in Medical Law, Shari Liby, says the surgery performed on her client removed far more lipoaspirate than what is considered safe, that her client was not adequately informed or prepared, was referred for a psychological evaluation to the psychologist wife of her doctor, and received inadequate post-surgery care when she developed complications.
“Liposuction is a surgery with very real risks, up to and including death,” Ms Liby said.
It is the job of surgeons who perform these procedures to fully inform their patients of these risks, and to put the needs of the patient before their own financial gain or celebrity status on TikTok,
Ms Liby said.
In her own words, Slater and Gordon’s client Rebecca (not her real name) said:
"I want people to hear me clearly: just because a doctor advertises on TV or has glossy ads everywhere doesn’t mean they are safe, reputable, or credible. Don’t be fooled by the marketing, like I was.
“Even five-star reviews don’t tell you the whole story. I read the reviews, I believed the fake image, and I thought I was making a safe choice. But what happened to me was the opposite of safe, it was devastating. I literally could have died!
Please, don’t blindly trust the white coat, the TV ads, or the perfect reviews. Ask questions, demand proof, dig deeper. Protect yourself, because not every doctor will protect you.
Slater and Gordon’s case is that:
- The patient's care was far below an acceptable standard.
- The informed consent discussions were inadequate.
- The patient was not aware of the real risks she was facing.
- It was negligent and unethical for Dr Aronov to refer his patient to his own wife for a pre-surgery psychological evaluation.
- It was equally inappropriate for his wife, Candice Wainstein, to undertake the evaluation despite the clear financial conflict of interest.
- The surgery itself was poorly performed, and reasonable medical practice required Dr Aronov to remove no more than 5 litres of lipoaspirate during the surgery. His own records document that he removed 2.6 times that amount.
- When the patient developed post-operative complications, the level of care provided to her by her medical team was disappointingly poor.
“With an appropriate psychological evaluation, or with a fulsome, informed consent discussion, my client would not have proceeded with the surgery,” Ms Liby said.
That, we say, didn’t happen, and as a result, my client has sustained permanent and life altering physical and psychological injuries.
Ms Liby said.
Slater and Gordon is seeking both compensatory and exemplary damages from the Defendants.
Compensatory damages compensate the Plaintiff for the injuries, damages, and losses they have suffered as a result of negligence. Exemplary damages are sought to punish the defendant for particularly reprehensible conduct, and to deter others from engaging in the same conduct.
It is rare in medical negligence cases that exemplary damages are sought, but when the evidence suggests conscious wrongdoing in disregard of another's rights, they are justified.
Have you been impacted?
If you or someone you know has been impacted by this case please contact with us