PITTSBURGH -- The plaintiff in a lawsuit claiming a hair salon burned her scalp has agreed to settle following the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Deborah and Harry Craigo of Aspinwall had filed the complaint against Priscilla Oblinger of Lu Chic Hair Design, claiming Deborah Craigo suffered chemical burns following a hair coloring treatment at the salon.
“On March 21, 2017, plaintiff-wife [Deborah] Craigo was a customer at defendant’s beauty salon, and was owed the highest duty of care as a business invitee and paying customer with respect to the salon and cosmetology services provided by the defendant,” the lawsuit said.
Deborah Craigo stated that the burn was caused by “the negligent application of hair coloring products at the defendant’s salon.”
However, the defendant filed the motion for summary judgment claiming there was a lack of admissible evidence for the plaintiff to prove the case.
To support the motion, Oblinger noted that Deborah Craigo had a condition known as meningioma in 2009, which was the result of a benign tumor underneath her skull. She was surgically treated for it by having a portion of her skull replaced with titanium wire mesh.
Oblinger also noted in her motion that Deborah Craigo had been a customer of the salon for more than six years and had not suffered any problems in that time. In fact, she noted that Deborah Craigo had no complaints about the service on the day in question.
Yet, 10 days later, Craigo noticed an irritation on her scalp and sought out medical advice.
“It was observed that the skin which was over the titanium mesh which had previously been implanted in the Plaintiff’s skull had deteriorated,” the motion said. As a result, Craigo had to have two surgeries to fix the problems.
The motion cast doubt on the plaintiff’s expert report that is a fundamental element of their case.
“There is no place where this expert affirmatively opines, within a reasonable degree of chemical certainly or medical certainty what caused the chemical burn that was reported by Deborah Craigo some 10 days after leaving the defendant's establishment," the motion said.
"This expert recites various possibilities and alternatives, but does not ever offer an opinion regarding an actual cause of the plaintiff’s harm. In order for a jury to conclude that the conduct of the defendant did cause the harm complained of, this plaintiff’s expert must be able to engage in more than conjecture. He must be able to opine, within reasonable scientific/chemical certainly, what caused the injury complained of."
In the complaint, Deborah Craigo was seeking compensation for the pain caused by the burn, severe and permanent disfigurement; severe and permanent scarring; medical expenses; loss of earnings; loss of earning capacity; severe emotional distress; humiliation and embarrassment and loss of enjoyment of the pleasures of life. The plaintiffs were seeking damages over $35,000 and a jury trial.