PRINCETON – A Virginia woman says a visit to update her permanent eye makeup became a real eye-opening experience.
Teresa Dye filed her complaint in Mercer Circuit Court against Nail Extenders doing business as Tina S. Otey and Nail Extenders Salon & Day Spa also known as Permanent Makeup by Tina. Dye’s husband Larry also is a plaintiff in the case.
The defendants offer a variety of cosmetology services such as hair, nails, facials and permanent tattoo makeup.
According to the original complaint, Teresa Dye has spent substantial time and money in maintaining her physical appearance. She helps run her family business, which has included appearing in television commercials.
On November 30, 2022, Dye says she went to the defendant to have the permanent tattooed eyeliner on both her upper and lower eyelids touched up. She says Otey performed a touchup of the permanent eyeliner about five years prior.
Dye says Otey did not provide any documentation about which products or substances to avoid after the procedure, and Dye says she was not required to sign any documentation. She also says she wasn’t asked about what skin care products she had used before the appointment regarding possible interactions.
“Upon beginning the eyeliner touch-up, plaintiff immediately began to experience immense pain, despite the application of numbing cream by defendant Otey,” the complaint states. “Upon complaints of immense pain, defendant Otey advised that she was not able to provide an explanation for the same.
“Shortly after beginning, Otey became and expressed concern about what appeared to be a large bruise forming around the plaintiff’s eye. Defendant noted that this was unusual.”
Then, Dye says Otey asked her if she was using any kind of eyelash serum. Dye told her she was using Latisse. Then, she says Otey advised, for the first time, that eyelash serum was not to be used prior to having permanent eyeliner applied.
“Despite this, defendant Otey continued with the permanent eyeliner tattoo application on both eyes,” the complaint states. “Upon completion, plaintiff paid defendant Otey for her services and returned to her home.”
When she arrived home about 40 minutes later, Dye says she discovered the tattoo ink had bled through under her skin and “up and down her face.”
“Specifically, the tattoo ink was discovered to have bled below her eye into her cheek area and above her eye towards her eyebrows,” the complaint states.
Dye says she immediately called Otey, who traveled to Dye’s home to attempt to roll the ink back toward Dye’s eyes. When that effort was unsuccessful, “Otey offered to fix the bleed by applying flesh-colored tattoo ink to cover, which would have to occur a few weeks later.”
The next day, Dye says Otey told her she suspected the use of Latisse to be the cause of the ink migration. Dye also says she refused to allow Otey to apply the flesh-colored ink and decided to seek removal of the tattoo medically.
After unsuccessful attempts to find a facility to remove the tattoo ink because of the risk of permanent injury or damage, Dye says she found a place in Johnson City, Tennessee, that would do it. She says she has “undergone several extremely painful laser removal sessions, which has resulted in only incremental improvement at a substantial cost and expenses to the plaintiff.”
Dye says Otey used an improper needle depth which caused the ink to migrate into the eyes’ lymphatic system and improperly placed the tattoo needle that cause scarring of the eyes, which has resulted in continued pain and eye drainage. She also says she has been left with permanent disfigurement, incurred substantial medical and non-medical expenses and experienced physical and emotional pain and suffering.
She accuses Otey of negligence and reckless infliction of emotional distress. Her husband sues for loss of consortium.
Dye seeks compensatory damages for past and future pain and suffering, past and future loss of enjoyment of life, past and future medical expenses, past and future loss of household services, emotional distress, past and future out-of-pocket expenses and loss of consortium for her husband as well as punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interests, court costs, attorney fees, expenses and other relief.
In their answer filed January 8, the defendants deny liability and ask the court to rule in their favor as well as seeking court costs.
The defendants also say Dye had lip color change performed by Otey on December 19, 2019, almost three years before the incident in question. They say she asked for the eyeliner touchup then, but they say Otey told her then she should not receive eyeliner touchup until discontinuing use of the lash growth serum, which she had been using at that time as well. They say Dye did not tell Otey she was using the eyelash serum until after the procedure in question began on November 30, 2022.
The plaintiffs are being represented by Eric J. Buckner and Daniel J. Burns of Katz Kantor Stonestreet & Buckner of Princeton. The defendants are being represented by John W. Burns of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani of Pittsburgh. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge William Sadler.
Mercer Circuit Court case number 24-C-299