Woman Wins Compensation After Negligent Tattoo Removal
11/20/2012

A woman has been awarded over £5,000 in compensation after a tattoo removal procedure left her with keloid scarring.

Stacy Evans, 38, was injected with a caustic substance by a practitioner with just an hour’s training of the ““e-raze” procedure.

Online PR News – 20-November-2012 – Manchester, UK – A woman has been awarded over £5,000 in compensation after a tattoo removal procedure left her with keloid scarring.

Stacy Evans, 38, was injected with a caustic substance by a practitioner with just an hour’s training of the ““e-raze” procedure.

Lord Justice Tomlinson described how he was horrified to learn that tattooing appeared to be “a wholly unregulated field and, from a strictly legal point of view, could be offered by a bus conductor”.

Ms Evans was a teenager when she had the tattoo on her breast and visited the Skin Deep beauty therapy centre in Staffordshire to have it removed.

She said: "This whole episode has been extremely stressful, if I had known or had been given adequate information or warning on this procedure I would never have agreed to undertake it.

I believed that any kind of surgical procedure had proper guidelines and safeguards and would expect anyone in a position to carry out this procedure would be properly trained – this was not the case and I am shocked that there are no controls or regulation protecting people like me.

I hope others never have to go through the pain, scarring and embarrassment that I have had to experience and I urge the authorities to safeguard against these types of procedures. People without training and proper medical qualifications should not be allowed to carry out operations like this."

Manchester law firm, Ralli, had previously secured £6,000 for another woman scarred by the same procedure at the same beauty therapy centre, administered owner and practitioner, Janet Arblaster.

Tracey Horton, a personal injury Associate at Ralli, commented:

“If Ms Evans had been adequately warned she would not have gone ahead, as she is now left with a far more unsightly deformity than the tattoo.

Ms Evans should have been given the opportunity to make an informed decision; she was not given that opportunity.

From a public policy point of view it cannot be right that these procedures are completed by people who are not regulated or insured, and by people who do not accept responsibility for the for the consequences if the procedure goes wrong or does not meet the client’s expectations based on informed consent.”