BC resident's permanent eyeliner treatment leads to pain, legal fight
A BC resident underwent permanent eyeliner treatment, but things didn’t go well afterward, leading to a legal dispute.
In a decision posted publicly at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, Patricia Ward-Hall claimed $5,000 in damages against Apple Beauty Salon, represented by Mai Tuyet Thi Pham.
Pham said that she performed the procedure in compliance with industry standards and that Ward-Hall’s issues post-procedure were their fault.
Ward-Hall claimed the procedure caused chemical burns and sought reimbursement for the eyeliner treatment and money for physiotherapy.
- You might also like:
- BC shelter employee wins thousands in wrongful termination case
- BC case about exposed buttocks causing "emotional harm" dismissed
- BC renter claims he was kicked out for wanting to shower twice a day
Ward-Hall’s appointment was on December 21, 2022, but they and Pham have different accounts of what occurred. Ward-Hall claims that when they sat up from the appointment, the ink bled into their eyes, immediately burning them with chemical burns. They added that they spent seven or eight hours in the salon waiting for the reaction to subside.
They then went to Peace Arch Hospital, where they were diagnosed with chemical keratitis. Ward-Hall also claimed to suffer from vertigo from stress and PTSD related to the experience. Ward-Hal did not provide any medical records proving that they were diagnosed with vertigo or PTSD.
Pham told the tribunal that she communicated all the risks to Ward-Hall before the procedure, which included mild redness and swelling for a few days. The risks were communicated verbally and not in writing.
According to Pham, Ward-Hall was checked on multiple times during the procedure, and their eyelids were cleaned to prevent ink from getting into their eyes. She added that the pigment used in the procedure is only applied to the outer skin of the eyelid, with the needle never making contact with the inner eyelid or eyeball.
Pham added that Ward-Hall repeatedly rubbed their eyes, which they were advised not to do.
Ward-Hall needed to prove that Pham was negligent, but they could not provide expert evidence to support her claim.
Despite Ward-Hall’s ability to prove that they were injured, the injury didn’t prove that Pham’s work was negligent because the ophthalmologist’s report didn’t say the chemical burn was caused by “an improper application procedure.”
Ward-Hall’s claim was dismissed by the tribunal.