Medico‐Legal Liability and Practice‐Related Factors in Dermatologic Laser and Energy‐Based Procedures: A Systematic Review

Objectives Dermatologic lasers and energy‐based devices (EBDs) are widely used in medical and cosmetic dermatology. Despite their effectiveness, complications may lead to medicolegal claims. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the global patterns and outcomes of medicolegal claims associated with dermatologic laser and energy‐based procedures. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261286979). PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from inception to November 2025 for studies reporting medico‐legal outcomes related to dermatologic laser or energy‐based procedures. Results Eighteen reports encompassing 5460 cases in their source datasets were included. Ten reports (1751 cases) primarily concerned laser and energy‐based procedures, whereas eight reports (3709 cases) described broader dermatology or cosmetic‐procedure datasets, for which laser‐related case counts were not consistently separable. Some principally laser‐focused datasets also contained non‐cutaneous procedures. Hair removal and resurfacing featured prominently in reports of cosmetic laser‐related claims. Reported injuries included burns, scarring, pigmentary changes and, less often, ocular injury. Inadequate consent, device settings, operator training and supervision featured among allegations. Broader dermatology datasets also described delayed recognition of malignant pigmented lesions, but their findings cannot be assigned specifically to laser exposure. Conclusion Published claims and case series identify recurring safety concerns during dermatologic laser and energy‐based procedures, including burns, pigmentary injury, deficient consent and inadequate supervision. Because the evidence is predominantly retrospective and often lacks procedure‐level denominators, these findings describe patterns among reported cases rather than estimating comparative litigation risk. Appropriate training, clinical assessment, supervision and documentation remain important safeguards.