Confidential
Settlement – $880,000Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Richard Strick
(medical)
Mark Mazur
(medical)
David Heber
(medical)
Mel Tommaselli
(technical)
Facts
In 1992 the plaintiff, a 38-year-old balding salesman, investigated various methods of hair replacement. Due to the fact that he was an insulin-dependent diabetic and was concerned about surgical procedures and infection, he elected hair replacement through a non-surgical technique. The plaintiff used a product from the defendant hair company. The defendant hair company's hair replacement method was to apply the hairpiece to trimmed hair with an adhesive. The plaintiff purchased the hairpiece from the defendant hair company. Approximately every four to six weeks the plaintiff would return to the defendant for removal of the hairpiece, trimming of his hair and re-application of the hairpiece. On October 15, 1992, the plaintiff went to the defendant for his customary service. The cosmetologist was allegedly unable to remove the hairpiece in the standard way and instead used clippers at the back of the plaintiff's scalp. The cosmetologist allegedly cut the plaintiff's scalp with the clippers. Following the removal of the hairpiece, the cosmetologist prepared the plaintiff's hair and scalp and re-applied the hairpiece. A few days later, the plaintiff noted persistent symptoms over the posterior aspect of his scalp. He returned to the defendant hair company for removal of the hairpiece and evaluation. On October 22, 1992, he had large ulcerated areas over the posterior aspect of his scalp. He was seen by a dermatologist and antibiotics were prescribed. On October 26, 1992, the plaintiff worsened and was admitted to the intensive care unit at Kaiser Hospital. He was discharged home on antibiotics. On November 8, 1992, the plaintiff was re-admitted to Kaiser Hospital with a continued infection and facial swelling which eventually caused damage to the nerves on his scalp, forehead, and the left side of his face. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants, hair company and product manufacturer, based on a negligence, product liability and fraud theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $975,000. The defendant hair company made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $450,000, which was increased to $880,000.
Specials in Evidence
$27,000 $__________ $__________ $_________
Injuries
The plaintiff alleged that he sustained facial paralysis, numbness and a decrease in vision in his left eye as a result of the defendants' conduct. The plaintiff also alleged that he underwent multiple procedures to drain pus from his head and face and suffers with a significant facial deformity which affects his appearance and does not allow him to close his left eye.
Other Information
The settlement was reached approximately two years and eight months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held in 1994, but did not resolve the matter. There was a $27,000 medical lien (Kaiser). The case against the defendant manufacturer of the adhesive glue was stayed due to bankruptcy.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390