A San Francisco woman is suing a local medical spa for negligence and battery following a botched laser hair removal procedure that left her with permanent scars. Hannah Tokuno filed the complaint against SEV Laser Aesthetics San Francisco, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, on August 23, 2024.
The lawsuit alleges that on October 10, 2023, Tokuno sought laser hair removal treatments from SEV Laser Aesthetics. According to the complaint, the defendants performed the procedure negligently, resulting in severe laser burns and permanent scarring on Tokuno's arms. The plaintiff claims that the medical spa failed to properly supervise or train its employees and did not conduct necessary patch tests or temperature checks before administering the treatment.
Tokuno’s complaint details multiple failures by SEV Laser Aesthetics and its staff. She asserts that they did not adequately inform her of the potential risks associated with laser hair removal treatments, thereby failing to secure her informed consent. "Defendants engaged in the practice of laser hair removal treatments without proper supervision and/or training of their employees," states the complaint. It further accuses them of performing medical procedures without proper authorization and under conditions that were unsafe for patients.
The first cause of action in Tokuno's lawsuit is medical malpractice. She contends that SEV Laser Aesthetics was careless and negligent in their implementation of laser hair removal treatments. The complaint alleges that this negligence directly resulted in permanent injury and disability for Tokuno. "As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and conduct of defendants... Plaintiff was required to incur expenses for services of hospitals, doctors, and other medical care," reads the document.
The second cause of action is medical battery. Tokuno claims that SEV Laser Aesthetics performed medical spa procedures without her informed consent or under false pretenses about their safety measures. "Defendants performed medical spa procedures without Plaintiff's consent," alleges the lawsuit. Alternatively, she argues that even if she had consented to the treatment, it was based on assurances that it would be properly administered—a promise she claims was broken.
In terms of relief sought from the court, Tokuno is asking for general damages exceeding the jurisdictional minimum of the court as well as special damages according to proof presented during trial. She also seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, interest as provided by law, and any other relief deemed just by the court.
Representing Hannah Tokuno is Michael E. Hale from Liuzzi, Murphy, Solomon, Churton, Hale & Winnett LLP. The case has been assigned Case No.: CGC-24-617441 in front of an unnamed judge at this time.