Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shuayto v. Skin Obsession

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 31, 2016

DOHA SHUAYTO, Plaintiff,
v.
SKIN OBSESSION, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 10).

          GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case arises out of injuries that plaintiff Doha Shuayto sustained after using a product manufactured and sold by defendant Skin Obsession. The matter is before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court heard oral argument on the motion on October 26, 2016. For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

         I. Background

         Defendant manufactures and sells skin care products, including a range of glycolic acid chemical peels in various concentrations ranging from 20% glycolic acid to 50% glycolic acid. (Doc. 10-1 at 1). The product description for the 50% glycolic acid chemical peel on defendant's website states:

Our 50% Glycolic Acid Peel is the strongest of our Glycolic acid peels and is best for people who are familiar with the peeling process. This peel is suited for tougher skin and clients who know how their skin responds to a peel. If you know how your skin responds to a chemical peel, this is the peel you should order. If you are new to peeling, a lower concentration is more appropriate. The 50% Glycolic peel is very safe when used as directed, but is a strong, professional strength peel (pH 1) and should be used only as directed.
Legal Disclaimer: Information provided within this entire listing is intended to be used as general information-only and is in no way intended to replace medical advice, is not to be used as a medical treatment program, nor to diagnose or cure of any disease or medical condition. Always consult with a qualified physician for medical advice. You are solely responsible for the use and misuse of products offered and for all actions and consequences of that use or misuse.
Always patch test products before use. … Misuse of chemical products can cause injury and burns.

(Doc. 10-1 at 1-2).

         Plaintiff's prior history with chemical peels consisted of one or two chemical peels administered by a physician within the preceding three or five years. (Doc. 12-1 at 8). Plaintiff could not remember the name of these peels or their active ingredients. (Doc. 12-1 at 9).

         On April 23, 2015, plaintiff ordered a bottle of the 50% glycolic acid chemical peel from defendant's website after an unnamed acquaintance in her nail salon recommended Skin Obsession products. (Doc. 12-1 at 5, 9). Plaintiff testified that, prior to purchasing this 50% acid concentration, she read the product's description and understood that this was the strongest glycolic acid peel, suited for those “who are familiar with the peeling process” and “know how [their] skin responds to a chemical peel.” (Doc. 12-1 at 10). Despite her limited experience with chemical peels, plaintiff purchased the 50% glycolic acid concentration.

         Plaintiff testified that she applied the peel as instructed on the evening of April 28, 2016, felt burning and stinging, and removed the peel after 3 minutes. (Doc. 12-1 at 13-14). Plaintiff's pain increased throughout the night, leading her to seek medical treatment. (Doc. 12-1 at 14). Defendant relies on plaintiff's prior statements and medical records to argue that she misused the peel; leaving it on overnight and failing to remove it with the instructed solution.

         Plaintiff sustained second degree chemical burns to her face. (Doc. 10-5 at 3). Plaintiff filed this action against defendant, alleging claims for negligence, including improper manufacturing and failure to test the product, and breach of implied warranty. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on August 12, 2016. (Doc. 10).

         II. Standard for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.