Banker suing for £1,000,000 after surgery left her with one leg longer than the other

But Ms Foo is now calling the surgery a 'car crash'.

A 5’2” investment banker who had surgery to lengthen her legs is suing her doctor for more than £1m over the ‘car crash’ operation.

Harvard graduate Elaine Foo, 49, had always been ‘self conscious about her height’ and decided to act after ‘experiencing bullying’ while working on Bank of America Merryl Lynch’s trading floor in London, the High Court heard.

She went under the knife of surgeon Dr Jean-Marc Guichet – known as ‘the father of leg-lengthening’ – in 2016, undergoing procedures to increase the length of her thigh bones, and therefore overall height.

The operations involved Dr Guichet sawing her thigh bones in half, hollowing out the marrow along a foot-long length inside the bone and inserting a telescopic metal rod, held in place by pins.

The rods were designed to increase their length gradually via a ratchet mechanism, pulling the two cut halves of the bone gradually apart, with the healing bone filling the gap in between and increasing leg length.

But Ms Foo is now suing, calling the surgery a ‘car crash’ and claiming she went through five years of hell, unable to walk without the aid of crutches due to Dr Guichet.

She says he caused her left leg to painfully fracture due to defects in the way he carried out his surgery, and also claims the rod inserted in her right leg – known as a ‘Guichet nail’ after its inventor – extended ‘accidentally’ by itself, leaving her with a short left leg ‘dangling 16cm off the ground’ when she stood up.

Her problems with the surgery were eventually resolved and she can now walk normally – as well as being around four inches taller than her previous 5ft 2ins, the court heard.

But she is suing the surgeon, claiming over £1m in damages for pain, care and lost earnings over the five-year period it took to resolve the issues.

Dr Guichet however denies fault and claims Ms Foo was to blame for her right leg ending up longer, insisting she deliberately lengthened the nail herself, contrary to his instructions.

Richard Baker KC, for Ms Foo, told Judge Anthony Metzer KC: ‘Before the index events she was a driven, hard-working, high-flyer.

‘Throughout most of her adult life, the claimant was self-conscious about her height and had investigated the prospect of undergoing surgery to make her taller. In 2016, the claimant contacted the defendant, who is an orthopaedic surgeon professing to specialise in leg-lengthening surgery.

Follow Metro on WhatsApp to be the first to get all the latest news

Metro’s on Whatsapp! Join our community for breaking news and juicy stories.

‘The claimant underwent a leg lengthening procedure advertised by the defendant. Despite the fact that the claimant embarked upon surgery many might regard as extraordinary, she did so for very real personal reasons due to issues she had encountered in her life in relation to her height.’

The barrister said Ms Foo was off work on gardening leave at the time she underwent the surgery and subsequently left in October 2016, having been ‘paid a very substantial settlement without any sort of admission’.

Going into the complications following the surgery, the barrister claimed that Dr Guichet had inserted too thick a rod into Ms Foo’s left leg and consequently had to hollow the bone out excessively, leaving it weak and prone to fracture.

He also claimed in relation to the right leg that the doctor failed to properly deal with the issue when Ms Foo told him that the nail was extending by itself and that it was ‘frightening’.

The surgeon had also allegedly created a 1cm gap in the right thigh bone during the surgery, which the prosecution argued led to the bone failing to properly heal.

She had to undergo a series of additional operations to correct the disparity in the length of her two legs until the issues were finally resolved this year, the barrister said.

The barrister added: ‘She was left for quite a long time with quite profoundly different leg lengths. The long term impact is that she needed several years of follow up and it is only recently that she has begun to mobilise again without crutches.’

He told the judge Ms Foo had complained of ‘accidental clicks’ lengthening the nail and had told the doctor ‘it’s scary’ in a consultation.

‘She suffered from a significant deterioration in her mental health caused in no small part by her ongoing disabilities,’ the barrister told the judge, adding that because her condition had now stabilised Ms Foo’s claim is based on past losses, with no claim for future damages or loss of earnings.

In the witness box, Ms Foo told the judge that, when she signed up for the operation, she was shown a document setting out the potential complications which could result from going through with the radical procedure.

She said: ‘It ran to six pages. It was like studying for your driving licence, except you are signing up for a guaranteed car crash.

‘When you have a large difference in leg length, you wait anxiously for news every day and you want it to be fixed as soon as possible,’ she said.

Rob Sowersby, on behalf of the surgeon, denied that the difference in her leg lengths had been as much as 16cm and denied any negligence on the doctor’s part.

‘Ms Foo alleges that the fracture on the left side and delayed bone regeneration on the right resulted from negligence on Dr Guichet’s part, and that the nail in her right femur was faulty and kept lengthening without any deliberate action on her part,’ he said.

‘Dr Guichet’s case is that there was no negligence, that the fracture and delayed bone healing were unfortunate non-negligent complications that Ms Foo was warned of before surgery, and that the limited right-sided bone regeneration was aggravated by Ms Foo’s undisclosed use of anti-depressants and by her deliberately extending the nail in her right leg beyond the agreed length.’

He said Ms Foo had ‘frequently declined’ to follow her surgeon’s advice and had neglected her rehabilitation and physiotherapy.

She had also failed to pinpoint the time she claims to have complained to Dr Guichet that her ratchet was experiencing large numbers of ‘accidental clicks’ so that the leg was lengthening in ‘an unwanted or uncontrolled way.’

‘Any patient with a genuine concern that they were experiencing hundreds of accidental clicks, and that their leg was lengthening uncontrollably as a result, would have made that fact extremely clear to their treating clinician, yet there is no record, text message, email or conversation in which Ms Foo makes such an assertion to Dr Guichet,’ he said.

The trial continues.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.