Laser Hair Removal Lawsuit: Dermatology Negligence and Medical Liability in Hedrick v. Hardt (2015 Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals)

Court affirms verdict in laser hair removal burn injury dispute

In Hedrick v. Hardt (2015 OK CIV APP 77, Case No. 111273), the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals upheld a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Joan M. Hardt and Rejuvena Skin and Wellness Center after plaintiff Melese Hedrick alleged that negligent laser hair removal treatments caused facial burns and scarring. The case originated from a 2005 procedure using a CoolGlide laser at Rejuvena Clinic in Oklahoma City. Hedrick sought damages for pain, disfigurement, and medical costs, arguing that the clinic’s technician improperly operated the laser and that the defendants failed to provide adequate supervision or training.

The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment, holding that Hedrick did not establish all required elements to invoke res ipsa loquitur under 76 O.S. § 21, specifically, that the injury was caused by an instrumentality under the defendants’ exclusive control. Expert witnesses, including a plastic surgeon and a dermatologist, explained that complications such as blistering, burns, and scarring can occur even with proper care. The court concluded that patient actions such as scratching or not following post-treatment instructions, prevented a presumption of negligence. The decision emphasized that dermatology-related laser treatments carry inherent risks and that negligence must rest on clear causal proof rather than inference alone.

Timeline of the Hedrick v. Hardt Laser Hair Removal Negligence Case (2015 Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals)

February 14, 2005: Laser Hair Removal Treatment at Rejuvena Clinic

Melese Hedrick began facial laser hair removal treatments at Rejuvena Skin and Wellness Center in Oklahoma City, operated by Dr. Joan M. Hardt. The clinic used a CoolGlide laser system, and Hedrick signed a consent form acknowledging potential complications such as infection, scarring, and blistering. The form emphasized the importance of following post-treatment instructions to minimize risks, which are common concerns in dermatology and laser skin procedures.

March 30, 2005: Early Signs of Complications Reported

After her first treatment, Hedrick reported developing a vesicle, a small blister on her face but continued subsequent sessions. Two additional treatments were performed by the same technician without further incident. These early reactions reflected known dermatological side effects of laser use, highlighting that minor burns or blisters can occur even under standard care.

June 22, 2005: Fourth Treatment Leads to Facial Burns

During her fourth laser session, administered by a different technician, Hedrick experienced intense pain and burning. The technicians discussed lowering the machine’s settings, and Hedrick later observed peeling skin and severe burns. She reported the next day that her blisters were oozing, prompting advice from Dr. Hardt’s staff to apply Bacitracin and return if symptoms persisted.

August 3, 2005: Scarring and Post-Treatment Findings Documented

At a follow-up visit six weeks later, Dr. Hardt noted 8–10 millimeter pitted scars on Hedrick’s right cheek and mild excoriations (scratches). Progress notes indicated Hedrick was not using Bacitracin consistently. Dr. Hardt offered six complimentary Genesis laser sessions to improve scar appearance, a treatment approach consistent with dermatological scar management, though Hedrick completed only two sessions.

August 2006–2007: Plastic Surgeon Evaluation and Lawsuit Filed

About a year later, Hedrick was examined by plastic surgeon Dr. Paul Silverstein, who assessed her facial scarring. In 2007, she filed a negligence lawsuit against Dr. Hardt and Rejuvena Clinic (Case No. CJ-2007-5448), alleging inadequate supervision and training of staff during laser treatments. The defendants denied negligence and raised defenses including assumption of risk and comparative fault.

September 2012: Jury Trial in Oklahoma County District Court

The case proceeded to a three-day jury trial before Judge Barbara G. Swinton. Testimony was presented from Hedrick, Dr. Hardt, and the treating technician, along with expert witnesses, Dr. Silverstein (plastic surgery), Dr. Craig Davis (dermatology), and Dr. Michael Elder (anesthesiology). Dr. Davis testified that the burns sustained should not occur absent operator negligence, while Dr. Silverstein explained how post-treatment care and patient scratching could worsen scarring. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

October–November 2012: Post-Trial Motions Denied

Hedrick filed a motion and an amended motion for a new trial, asserting that the court erred by refusing to issue a res ipsa loquitur instruction to the jury. The trial court denied both motions, finding no grounds for retrial under Oklahoma law. The judgment on the jury verdict was entered on October 23, 2012, and the appeal followed.

March 13, 2015: Court of Civil Appeals Affirms Verdict

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Division III, issued its opinion (2015 OK CIV APP 77, 359 P.3d 203), affirming the lower court’s decision. The appellate panel held that res ipsa loquitur did not apply because Hedrick failed to prove exclusive control by the defendants or eliminate her own conduct as a contributing factor. The court emphasized that laser burns and blisters can occur during cosmetic dermatology treatments without negligence and that patient compliance with post-care instructions is a relevant consideration.

October 15, 2015: Mandate Issued, Case Closed

Following appellate affirmance, the mandate was issued, finalizing the judgment in favor of Dr. Hardt and Rejuvena Clinic. The ruling stands as a reference point in Oklahoma medical negligence jurisprudence involving elective dermatological laser treatments, underscoring that inherent risks must be distinguished from negligent outcomes.

Medical Expert Witness Analysis in Hedrick v. Hardt (2015): Laser Hair Removal Negligence Litigation

1. Plastic Surgery Expert Witness (Plaintiff Expert)

• Dr. Paul Silverstein, a board-certified plastic surgeon, was referenced in the appellate opinion as one of the plaintiff’s medical experts whose video deposition was presented at trial. He evaluated Melese Hedrick’s facial scarring in 2006 and described the injury as a superficial second-degree burn, noting how post-treatment actions such as scratching could affect healing and scar formation.
• Plastic-surgery experts are commonly engaged in cosmetic-injury cases to assess the nature of tissue damage, permanence of disfigurement, and medical factors influencing the healing process.

2. Dermatology Expert Witness (Plaintiff Expert)

• Dr. Craig Davis, a dermatologist, appeared through video deposition as another expert for the plaintiff. According to the appellate record, he expressed the view that the kind of injury sustained by Hedrick “would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.” Dermatology experts are often consulted in laser-related negligence cases to interpret the dermatologic effects of energy-based devices, evaluate skin response to treatment, and review adherence to recognized dermatologic safety protocols.

3. Anesthesiology Expert Witness (Defense Expert)

• Dr. Michael Elder, an anesthesiologist and medical-facility director, appeared as an expert for the defense. The court record reflects that he discussed the operation and safety features of the CoolGlide laser and explained that burns may occur even when the device is properly used due to patient-specific variables.
• Experts in anesthesiology and device safety are frequently retained to clarify procedural mechanics, operational controls, and the clinical boundaries of physician and technician oversight during outpatient treatments.

4. Cosmetic Surgery Expert Witness

• These experts are typically engaged to evaluate the safety and clinical technique of aesthetic procedures, including how laser energy settings, technician performance, and patient skin type interact to affect outcomes. In dermatology-related laser injury cases, cosmetic surgery experts can also help interpret whether visible results, such as burns or scarring, align with recognized risks or suggest a deviation from standard care.

Legal Lessons and Strategic Insights from Hedrick v. Hardt (2015 Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals)

1. Establishing Exclusive Control Is Critical

Plaintiffs must show the defendant had sole control of the instrumentality to apply res ipsa loquitur. Here, patient conduct, scratching and inconsistent aftercare, defeated that element.

2. Expert Testimony Must Link Causation to Breach

The court emphasized that experts must connect injury directly to a deviation from standard care, not just outcome inference. Defense experts successfully contextualized known risks.

3. Consent Forms Strengthen Defense Arguments

Hedrick’s signed consent warning of blistering and scarring demonstrated that such complications can occur even with proper care evidence of informed consent, not negligence.

4. Cross-Examination Can Reframe Causation

Defense questioning highlighted aftercare inconsistencies and uncertainty, redirecting the jury from negligence toward inherent procedural risk.

5. Documentation Supports Trial and Appeal Success

Detailed records, depositions, and jury instructions were key to affirmance. Thorough medical charting remains a decisive defense tool in dermatology negligence claims.

Conclusion

The appellate ruling reaffirmed Oklahoma’s narrow application of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases. The court upheld the defense verdict, finding no exclusive control by the defendants and noting possible patient contribution.

This case illustrates how dermatology and tort law intersect when outcomes from elective laser procedures are disputed. Expert analysis from dermatology and plastic-surgery experts clarified that such burns can arise from inherent risk rather than substandard care. For attorneys, it underscores the importance of retaining qualified dermatology experts to explain laser technology, healing variability, and causation with clinical precision.