For what price could she have had this done?
If there is a conviction against you then you cannot defend this on the basis that you are not responsible. The conviction establishes that as a question of law.
I suppose you could argue that she was contributorily negligent maybe although it is not the best point.
However, she won't get away with choosing the most expensive option. She is under a duty to mitigate her loss. She might not be under a duty to choose the cheapest but the most expensive is just plain guilding the lily.
Can I clarify anything for you?
You are fully liable.
Come what may, you have been convicted. You are liable for the full cost of treatment.
No, you are liable for the cost of treatment.
But you can argue that she has not properly mitigate her loss by seeking the most expensive treatment.
So you need to gather evidence of cheaper options.
All the best
Please remember to rate my answer.