£11,000 secured for client injured by negligent beautician

Po Shan underwent Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) treatment, resulting in long lasting burns to her face and neck.

Po Shan instructed the Fosters Solicitors’ Personal Injury team, who acted on a no win no fee basis and helped support her through a claim, successfully negotiating a settlement of £11,000.

Po Shan’s case

In August 2020, Po Shan underwent IPL, which resulted in long lasting burns to her face and neck. Po Shan had previously had the same treatment in the February following a patch test which saw no complications.

At her August appointment, the beautician mentioned to Po Shan that as it had been more than six months since her last IPL treatment, she should do a patch test before proceeding. However, the beautician said she was willing to waive this and Po Shan agreed to proceed with the IPL treatment on this basis.

During the treatment Po Shan experienced “a lot of pain” and told the beautician several times that it “was not the same as last time” and was hurting her. Po Shan explained that not only did the treatment feel more painful the second time around it also felt very rushed.

At the end of the second treatment Po Shan had burns on the right side of her face and neck. As these burns healed, she was left with persistent areas of excessive darkening (known as hyperpigmentation) on her face and neck which greatly affected her confidence.

Po Shan instructed Fosters Solicitors on a no win non fee basis and a claim was submitted, but liability was strongly denied. A medical expert was instructed to provide a report to say whether the treatment fell below the standard to be reasonably expected and to give an expert opinion on the extent of the facial injuries caused by the IPL treatment. Following a prolonged period of negotiation, our Associate Chris Turner secured compensation for Po Shan of £11,000.

Commenting on the case, Chris Turner said: “I was delighted to secure a good result for Po Shan. The British Medical Laser Association provides guidance to enable practitioners to safely provide this treatment – however, this is only guidance which, in many regions, is not followed. In England, there are differing standards region to region, with some of the London Boroughs, Nottingham, and some Essex Boroughs being subject to a licensing scheme to ensure safety and quality of this treatment.

“In Norwich, where this treatment was provided, the licensing scheme does not apply, which allowed a practitioner to legally provide the treatment who was not suitably qualified (based on the BMLA guidelines). As seen in this case, the lack of licensing and safety standards can lead to disappointing outcomes or distressing injuries, it is therefore vital to ensure you do your research before starting any such treatment.”