Dura-Hair International, Inc

Volume 87 · 87 F.T.C. 1279

Citation: 87 F.T.C. 1279
Docket: 8830
Decision: 1976-05-18
Document type: petition ruling
Case type: consumer protection
Industry: hair replacement
Outcome: other
Commission counsel: Gerald Wright
Respondent counsel: Pro se. ORDI DEJ\ryING PETITION TO REOPEN Respondent, by petitions to reopen this proceeding dated February , and March 9, 1976, requests the modification of the order entered October 23, 1973 (& C. 5701, by deleting from the order the first third , fifth, sixth, seventh , eighth and ninth It is further ordered" paragraphs , and the first three subparagraphs under the second It further ordered" paragraph. These provisions mandate that respondent disclose that its so-called system of attaching hair involves a surgical procedure requiring the use of a local anesthetic, and resulting in the
Source: Original volume PDF
Original PDF: This decision as a PDF

Extraction note: this decision's boundaries or caption were hard to read automatically; check the source volume.

Cite this decision

Dura-Hair International, Inc, 87 F.T.C. 1279 (1976). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v087-0089

Report an error in this record (decision id v087-0089)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MAHER OF DURA-HAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Dolrt 8830. Orr, May, 1.976 Denial of respondent's petition to reopen proeding and modify the order to cease and desist.

Appearances For the Commission: Gerald Wright.

For the respondent: Pro se.

ORDI DEJ\rying PETITION TO REOPEN Respondent, by petitions to reopen this proceeding dated February , and March 9, 1976, requests the modification of the order entered October 23, 1973 (& C. 5701, by deleting from the order the first third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth It is further ordered" paragraphs, and the first three subparagraphs under the second It further ordered" paragraph. These provisions mandate that respondent disclose that its so-called system of attaching hair involves a surgical procedure requiring the use of a local anesthetic, and resulting in the implantation of sutures in the scalp. Additionally, the order provisions that respondent requests be deleted require that respondent disclose that, as a result of the surgical procedure, there is a risk of discomfort pain, infection, scarring, and other skin disorders, and, to minimize these risks, special care is necessary. These provisions further require that these and other disclosures be made to prospective purchasers licensees, and franchisees of the system.

Respondent asserts that the deletions are warranted, as the technique of tunneling under the scalp to form the grp for the permanently implanted sutures to which the hair is attached has been replaced by a technique that utilizes skin grafts to form tunnels through which removable clips are placed. The hair is attached to the clips. Respondent contends that since the scalp is not open, infections and other referred-to-above risks are avoided. Complaint counsel, in its answer opposing the reopening, take the position that since respondent' s assertions relate to medical matters, an affidavit from a qualified medical person, substantiating the claims, is necessary.

We agree. When the subject of an opinion is related to a professional field such as medicine, the person expressing the opinion must have sufficient knowledge and expertness in the field to give rise to the inference that the opinion is creditable and reliable. Respondent's Order 87 F.

unsubstantiated assertions, as a consequence, do not raise issues of fact that would warrant a modification of the order or, if necessary, our directing hearings to resolve the factual issues. Accordingly, It is ordered That respondent's request for reopening of this proceeding be, and it hereby is, denied.