red flags and "nut jobs"

Hair Removal Methods Professional Electrolysis
#1

About a year ago, I did a phone consultation with a woman. She explained that she “only had a few hairs on her chin” (the first “red flag”). Then, of course, she was tweezing for years, and completely distressed about her appearance (the second “red flag”). Furthermore, she had “seen several electrologists” but “it never worked; they weren’t any good … so I want to start with you” (the final “red flag”).

I told her that this is not the “scope of my practice” and referred her to my awesome colleague Karen.

Last night, Karen called me. Seems the woman had TWO 15-minute treatments back in MAY (2014)! Problem is, she said, “I still have scabs from YOUR treatment!” (Get that? SCABS that have lasted 9 months!!!)

She said, "the scabs ‘go away’ and then they form all over again … "

The woman has been to her dermatologist and, as she said, “The dermatologist was ‘no help at all’ and he would not give me any cream for the problem YOU CREATED!”

Karen said the woman admitted to “picking and tweezing” her skin … but it was still ALL Karen’s fault!

So there it is. TWO 15-minute appointments results in sleepless nights for Karen and a potential lawsuit. Of course, I will help her 100% … Karen is the ultimate pro in this field, her work is much better than mine … she is number ONE!

I’m glad that my instincts were working on this case. I have learned, over the years, to avoid the “nuts jobs.” Luckily, they are VERY FEW … but when you get one, they ruin your life.

Once I get permission, I will talk about a real lawsuit that is going on right now … a totally fraudulent claim.

#2

People get crazy ideas in their heads.

I had a client return after many years. She was never consistent with treatments and she’d never stopped tweezing. So, she returns and says she’ll stop tweezing and will get in regularly. Makes the second treatment and cancels it at the last minute. I was surprised when she made another appointment this week. When she came in she told me that right after her treatment last time her eyes turned red and swelled shut. (I’d worked on her chin and throat.) She was sure her eye issue was from what I’d done! Her eye doctor assured her that it was an allergy and/or related to dry eyes that occur with age.

#3

Ha ha ha Barbara …

I’m currently working with a fellow electrologist that is being sued for, well … a SCAM.

Part of her defense will be expert testimony. My friend Dr. Gregg Welsh (maxillofacial surgeon) is going to be helpful. However, he told me his “most incredible story.”

Gregg extracted two “wisdom teeth” from a woman. Three months later she sued him. She claimed that her naval (“belly button”) was now “off center” … and it was because of the tooth extraction. She “only” wanted $10,000. She lost in court.

Gregg said the judge broke down in tears … with laughter! He couldn’t help it!

#4

This is up there with the politician who wants women to get their gynecological exams done via a swallowed camera.

#5

I have cleared the following with the defendant’s attorney, so here goes.

Below are the pertinent points in an actual complaint filed a few weeks ago (this is the actual filing). Of course, every court filing is public record.

This complaint is against a licensed electrologist (25-years experience) who did a normal 15-minute treatment on tiny chin hairs … with no post-treatment manifestations. To every electrologist that reads the following … well, this will make you sick and angry. A few of us are lining up to help this poor soul (who now cannot sleep at night).

As I regularly say, those with no hair problem at all … often become your greatest problem (this has been my experience over the years).

(Points 1 - 8 are procedural and not germane to the case).

  1. Prior to the November 2013 procedure, Ms. “Client” had undergone electrolysis many times, including past procedures on her chin area. However, she had never undergone an electrolysis procedure on the soft tissue area where Ms. “Electrologist” performed the procedure. Due to her past experience with electrolysis, Ms. Client was familiar with the level of pain.

  2. During the procedure, Ms. Electrologist placed the electrolysis removal device under Ms. Client’s chin, towards the right side of her jaw. Ms. Client experienced an increased level of pain that was more severe than the sensation she normally experienced during electrolysis.

  3. Within minutes of leaving Ms. Electrologist residence following the procedure, Ms. Client noticed pain and numbness to her tongue. Within days of the procedure, Ms. Client noticed fissures forming on her tongue.

  4. Ms. Client’s symptoms worsened over time to include ongoing pain and numbness in her tongue, pain in the soft palate, pain in her upper gums and pain in her lips. Ms. Client also experienced ongoing loss of taste sensation and painful taste of her tongue (dysegusia). Ms. Client underwent numerous examinations by a variety of specialists, including a dermatologist, an internist, several neurologists and an oral surgeon … to diagnose and treat her symptoms.

  5. As a result of the unlicensed electrolysis procedure [NOT unlicensed, by the way], by Ms. Electrologist, Ms. Client suffered nerve damage which has caused ongoing pain and numbness in her tongue, ongoing pain in her soft palate, upper gums, and lips, persistent and severe pain in the submandibular area under her jaw, constant dry mouth and constant burning pain in her mouth which is exacerbated by normal eating, talking or drinking. Ms Client has no treatment options other than medical management.

  6. Ms. Client previously worked as a [substitute] teacher before electing to stay at home full time to care for her son, [Client went back to work.] However, Ms. Client has been unable to return to work following the November 1, 2013 procedure due to the debilitating pain and numbness she constantly experiences as a result of the electrolysis treatment performed by Ms. Electrologist.

  7. As a further direct and proximate results of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer pain, discomfort, emotional and mental distress, inconvenience, annoyance, the inability to enjoy life in a manner similar to that which existed previous to the incident, lost wages and other general damages and special damages, the nature and extent of which will be proven at the time of trial. For District Court jurisdictional purposes, damages sought are in excess of $10,000.

#6

For those of you “doing the math,” YES … this complaint was made more than a YEAR AFTER the 15-minute treatment.

The electrologist will win this case … but, sadly, she’s looking at perhaps $10,000 in legal fees.

BE CAREFUL AND DON’T TAKE “NUT JOBS” … if you can help it!

#7

If the electrologist has malpractice insurance then her provider might just say pay it off…(unfortunately)

In the history of the profession, the description of this “injury” has never been documented before, right?

#8

You have been around longer than me, Barbara, and if you have never heard of such a thing happening, then it probably hasn’t .

I’d be glad to vouch for this nonsense NOT happening. I do hours of vellus hair removal on chins, necks, sides of face, under lip, upper lip, forehead, cheeks and this is bullshit!

If the Electrologist needs a letter, I will write it. These side effects cannot happen. I have done years of vellus hair removal on clients and have never had any complaints even close to this woman’s complaints. I would fight back and counter sue for this fraud. No one should be rewarded for this nonsense because it can’t physically happen! I suppose it can psychologically, though, in which case, she needs psychological help. I hope the insurance company stands against this with no pay out being only for the simple truth that it is wrong.

#9

The real “punishment” is in the mental stress this is causing a delightful and passionate electrologist. When issues like this happen, you CAN’T get it out of your mind and it can make you physically ill. Sadly, this will take months to resolve.

I think she will have to go to court on this, because the plaintiff wants payments well into the future … no end to it.

Nicely, she has some excellent medical experts coming to her aid.

#10

Karen update:

I just spoke with Karen (7:30 AM) about her difficulties with the “9-month scab client.” Karen made an appointment yesterday (her day off) to see this client to discuss the “problems,” and return all of her money (as I suggested).

The client never showed up and Karen waited for an hour, and could not reach her on the phone either. This “saga” will continue … all for two 15-minute treatments.

Funny but I get TONS of anxiety myself over these issues. At the moment, I’m actually a bit shaky … but then, maybe it’s just the COFFEE?

#11

One stupid person like this makes us all want to quit.

#12

Was this in Calif.?

#13

One in California (the scab lady) … the other the “numb tongue lady,” in another Western State (I probably should not say?)

#14

I’m confused by this…unlicensed [NOT unlicensed]

The client is stating the electrologist is unlicensed when the electrologist is licensed?

I’m with Dee and would write a letter. One of my clients complained about an electro who left their upper lip numb for a few days. She said it went away and she never returned to that electro. The electro quit after a couple of years so the rest of us were glad.

#15

The plaintiff states, in her complaint, that the defendant is not licensed … but that’s not true; she is licensed. (Although that wouldn’t matter much in this case.)

Many needless sleepless nights are ahead! I wish I could take the anxiety and worry from this poor soul.

Oh, BTW … the “brackets” that look like this: “[ … ]” indicate something that is not original to the text. i.e., added by the writer for clarification (in this case me). “Brackets” that look like this “( … )” would be part of the original text.

#16

The situation described is totally disheartening. These “nut jobs” are of course suffering from a very common form of mental health disorder or disorders commonly known as hypochondria, which are often accompanied by OCD, bipolar disorder, depression, etc. The costs to society from these cases is astronomical.

It seems to me that the only thing you can do to avoid these situations is to be extremely wary. It might help to ask on the medical history tool about previously diagnosed mental health or anxiety disorders, though I suspect most people would not disclose their history or related medications.

I worked in a clinic and I would sometimes ask patients that seemed a little too worried,“Gee, you seem to be really worried about this, and sometimes the worry can be as bad as the problem! Have you ever seen someone about your anxiety before?” At they point they usually say, “oh yeah, I am under the treatment of a psychiatrist and they said I shouldn’t worry, but…” You’re right Michael, always be on guard and never touch someone you sense red flags about.

That there are scumbag lawyers out there that take advantage of these people is disgusting. If the client is rewarded in the situation above not only are they more apt to try it again in the future, but the attorney him/herself may actually start fishing for similar cases. What’s that joke about lawyers and a short pier…? Sad sad situation. I hope all turns about okay for Karen and in the other case.

#17

Actually, Emendia, the real worry should be with the manufacturer of the machine.

In the “tongue” case, there was nothing wrong or unusual about what the electrologist did: it was a nominal treatment. The plaintiff did not say anything about “scabs, scars, swelling or infection.” If she HAD noticed these manifestations she would have said so in her complaint.

So, her attorney SHOULD have sued the manufacturer, because in the case of this electrologist, she was following normal procedures and she did nothing that would come close to “malpractice.” (And, that would be part of my defense.)

If I still worked with this particular manufacturer, I would suggest that they get “pro-active” on the case because all of it could “land on their doorstep.”

The plaintiff’s lawyer “goofed up” because the manufacturer certainly has “deeper pockets” than the electrologist.

My friend, a pharmacist, is being sued (a ridiculous case), but the plaintiff has included the prescribing physician, the pharmacy, the pharmacist and the drug company too. You know, the “shot-gun” approach? (I think they included both Bush and Obama too, and certainly Hillary!)

#18

I bet this is a huge worry for manufacturers and schools alike! I was looking for information on who invented the flash method of thermolysis and came across this case:

CREMEENS v Kree Institute

You know a summary of case law involving electrolysis would be good reference tool for students and providers alike!

#19

As for question about the flash method… I know Paul Kree developed the multiple needle technique, but I thought I read somewhere that he also came up with the flash method. Can you shed light on this Michael?

Also, I am curious Michael, about your take on the relationship between the Kree school in New York and the Wishire school in Los Angeles? Sometimes it feels like the “debate,” silly as it is between “thermolysis versus blend” is an “east coast versus west coast” thing. Thoughts?