Influencer who claims ‘overly large’ breast implants ruined career SUES top plastic surgeon for £1.7m

A TOP influencer is suing a plastic surgeon for £1.7million after claiming her “overly large” breast implants ruined her career.

Danielle Mansutti says she was left with “disfigured” breasts and a “very poor cosmetic appearance” after undergoing three operations.

The 30-year-old, who has amassed 1.6million subscribers on YouTube thanks to her make up tutorials and fashion videos, first went under the knife in December 2020.

She then had further surgery in January and May 2021 after her left breast began to droop and her nipple started to “point outwards”.

After seeing a third surgeon, Danielle says she was finally advised that the implants had been too big for her size eight frame.

This had reportedly caused her chest muscles on her left side to tear away from the bone – leaving her in agony and with asymmetrical breasts.

Danielle, who eventually had the implants removed in May 2021, is now suing Harley Street plastic surgeon Dr Domenico Mileto.

She has accused the doc, who carried out the original op, of recommending oversized implants that left her “disfigured”.

Danielle is suring for £1.7million – including for potential loss of social media earnings of £1.4million – after claiming physical and mental impact of her ordeal led to her quitting the UK.

As a result, she said this forced her to stop work as an influencer and in return, lose her “successful social media career.”

But Dr Mileto has insisted there was nothing wrong with the surgery and that Danielle had asked for implants that size.

The High Court was told following an initial consultation in November 2020, it was noted she wanted to go from a 34B to a C/D cup.

Danielle's barrister Caroline Hallissey said: “The claimant explained to Dr Mileto that she wanted a natural breast appearance. She was a size eight dress size and was sure she did not want the appearance of obviously augmented breasts.

“She was given two or three implants to try, in the range 350-400cc, which were inserted into a sports bra provided by the clinic....when she expressed a preference for the smaller implant, Dr Mileto advised her to go for the larger implant as he said the implant would ‘drop' and ‘shrink' in time.

“She believed that Dr Mileto was the expert and that if he considered a 400cc implant was required to achieve the C/D cup and the natural look she wanted, then he must be right.

“She was not advised of any specific risks pertaining to the size of the implant that Dr Mileto had selected for her.”

Following her first surgery, Danielle saw a nurse at the MYA clinic amid concerns her left breast was lower than her right.

A second op was carried out in January 2021, which fixed the issue in the short term before it quickly returned, the court heard.

Danielle went on to have the implants removed by a third surgeon in May 2021 but says she has been left with “a visual deformity” caused by muscle damage and stretch marks.

The court heard her third surgeon's note “records that the pectoral muscle on the left side had become detached from the sternal bone”.

Ms Hallissey said: “She has been left with a very poor cosmetic appearance.

“She is left with pain and disability caused by pectoral muscle damage. She has extensive scarring to her breasts. The cosmetic appearance of her breasts is poor.

“She has sustained a significant adjustment reaction to the failed surgery.”

In his defence, Matthew Barnes, for Dr Mileto, said he denies putting in “overly large” implants that were bigger than requested.

The lawyer also told how Danielle had the “opportunity to try several implant sizes and take photographs so that she could consider her options after the appointment”.

She was also advised to book a second appointment if she was unsure about the size, it was said.

Mr Barnes added: “It is admitted that Dr Mileto did not advise the claimant that ‘in the context of her small frame [the implants] had potential adverse implications for...her pectoral muscles'.

“It is denied that he ought to have advised in those terms.”

The case is set to return to court for a five-day trial at a later date.