Because that's where, in our system, we determine if her claim was factually valid. It was, so she won. I don't see what's so confusing here: court is where it should have gone and been resolved.
I didn't RTFA, but I think the only thing the judge ruled on was her right to free speech, NOT on her claim of a "botched" surgery. Those are key and distinct differences. The problem with reviewing this case from the side lines, is that most of us are not qualified to evaluate this woman's surgery. We can view the results and decide if we like or dislike how she looks now, but we can't assess the surgery. There are many, many variables that may have been involved with her final, "look": she may not have followed surgeon's post-surgical instructions regarding care and precautions (ie, avoid tanning, avoid spa massages, avoid surprise parties). Even if the surgery was perfect, and even if she followed his directions exactly, there's often quite a variance in surgical outcome simply based on good vs poor genetics regarding healing, or simply piss-poor "protoplasm" as many would say.