Botched surgery left 5ft 2in worker ‘bullied’ over height with one leg longer than other

A 5ft 2ins “high flying” banker has been handed a “substantial” payout after settling her £1m High Court claim over “car crash” cosmetic leg-lengthening surgery.

Harvard graduate Elaine Foo, 49, had always been “self conscious about her height” and decided to act after “experiencing bullying” whilst 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 drastic 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 each bone and inserting telescopic metal rods, held in place by pins.

But Ms Foo later sued, 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’s blunders.

Dr Guichet denied any issues she experienced were his fault.

But now after a week-long trial at London’s High Court, the surgeon - without any admission of liability - has agreed to pay Ms Foo a “substantial” secret sum to settle her claim against him.

Richard Baker KC, for Ms Foo, told Judge Anthony Metzer KC that investment banker Ms Foo moved to London in 2011, working for Merrill Lynch until 2016, and “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,” he said.

“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.

“She was the subject of bullying and victimisation at Merryl Lynch, leading to depression,” the barrister said.

The rods inserted into her legs during the operations 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.

Ms Foo had claimed Dr Guichet caused her left leg to painfully fracture due to defects in the way he carried out his surgery, and also claimed 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 sued 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 denied all fault and claimed amongst other things that Ms Foo was to blame for her right leg ending up longer, insisting she deliberately lengthened the nail herself, contrary to his instructions.

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.

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

She also told the judge that at one point post-operation, the difference in the length of her legs was so profound that when she stood up “the other leg was swinging 16cm off the ground.”

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.

After a week in court however, Dr Guichet agreed to pay his former patient what Mr Baker described as a “substantial sum” to settle her claim against him.

After being told of the secret settlement, Judge Metzer told Ms Foo: “These cases are understandably very strongly felt and I’m extremely pleased that the parties have reached a settlement.

“Now you can move on from this. It can’t have been easy for you.

“Equally Dr Guichet, whose reputation is important to him - it can’t have been easy for him too,” he added.

Mr Baker told the judge that the question of who pays the costs of the case has yet to be agreed.

Ms Foo declined to comment outside court afterwards.