inforMED
InjuryLEJ

*

Received Apr 19, 2001 · Event occurred Dec 2, 2000

Report MW4002979 · MDR key 328478

Device

Generic name

Tanning Bed

Manufacturer

Ets, Inc.

Model number

NI

Catalog number

NA

Lot number

NA

Product problems

  • Reaction

Patient

NO INFO

  • Loss of Vision
  • Collapse

Narrative

Description of Event or Problem

COMPLAINANT REPORTED HAVING A CONGENTITAL DEFECT OF BOTH EYES (TINY CATARACTS IN EACH EYE). RELATED HAVING EXPERIENCED BURNING SENSATION TO BOTH EYES, WHICH HAS PERSISTED TO THIS DATE, AFTER USE OF TANNING BED. STATES THAT THEY ASKED THE OPERATOR OF THE TANNING BED TO KEEP THE FACIAL UNIT OFF, EXPLAINING EYE CONDITION. STATED FOR THEIR DOUBLE PROTECTION. OPERATOR ALSO INCLUDED COTTON UNDERNEATH THE GOGGLES PROVIDED. COMPLAINANT STATED THEY REITERATED TO THE OPERATOR THREE TIMES NOT TO TURN ON THE FACIAL UNIT AND OPERATOR EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS AN AUTOMATIC MACHINE AND WOULD COME ON 3 MINS AFTER SWTICH BUTTON WAS PUSHED. COMPALINANT STATED THEY BEGAN TO FEEL BURING SENSATION TO EVEYES AFTER MACHINE HAD BEEN ON FOR SEVERAL MINS, STATING THEY SPENT A TOTAL OF 9 MINS IN THE TANNING BOOTH. COMPLAINANT RELATED THAT THEY COULDN'T SEE TO READ FOR A MONTH AFTER THE INCIDENT. COMPLAINANT STATED THEY HAD BEEN TO THREE DIFFERENT MEDICAL CLINICIANS: OPHTHALMOLOGIST/OPTOMETRISTS/INTERNAL MEDICINE PHYSICIAN. COMPLAINANT STATED THEY WERE TOLD BY ALL THREE PHYSICIANS THAT AS LONG AS THEY WORE THE GOGGLES, THEIR EYES WERE PROTECTED. COMPLAINANT RELATED THAT NONE OF THE CLINICIANS RECOGNIZED ANY PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE EYES.