Kwon Mina Alleges Second‑Degree Burns After Shurink Treatment: What the Case Reveals About Cosmetic Procedure Risks and Patient Rights

Key Highlights
Introduction
What Kwon Mina reported: timeline, symptoms and immediate impact
What is Shurink and how such devices can cause burns
Clinical standards: informed consent, sedation and pre‑procedure evaluation
Medical care for burns from cosmetic energy devices
Legal avenues: civil, criminal and regulatory remedies
Why sedation complicates safety and consent
Psychological toll and career impact for public figures
Industry responses and regulatory precedents
Practical guidance for patients considering non‑surgical lifting procedures
What victims should do immediately after a suspected procedure‑related burn
The broader industry question: training, accountability and consumer protection
Putting Kwon Mina’s case in context: what it may mean for patients and providers
Real‑world examples illustrating risk and response
How clinicians can rebuild trust after adverse events
Closing observation
FAQ

Key Highlights

Former AOA member Kwon Mina says she suffered second‑degree burns and scarring after receiving 600 shots of a Shurink lifting procedure under sedation, and claims the clinic failed to provide fresh informed consent or perform a pre‑procedure skin check.
The incident raises questions about device‑related burn risks from high‑intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatments, the legal obligations of clinics around consent and sedation, and the medical and psychological care required after thermal skin injuries.
Patients can reduce risk by verifying clinic credentials, insisting on up‑to‑date informed consent and skin assessments, requesting device and operator details, and demanding written aftercare plans; victims should document injuries, seek specialist care, and consider civil and regulatory complaints.

Introduction

An Instagram post by Kwon Mina on February 8, 2026 has drawn fresh attention to the safety and oversight of non‑surgical cosmetic treatments. The former idol and actress published photographs of deep burns on both cheeks and her neck, and reported waking from a sedated Shurink procedure in excruciating pain. She describes peeling skin, blistering, fluid discharge and ongoing panic attacks, while also saying the clinic did not provide a new consent form, a pre‑procedure skin diagnosis, or a full explanation of the treatment and its risks.

The case is notable on several levels. It illustrates how energy‑based devices used for noninvasive lifting and tightening can produce significant thermal injury when complications occur. It highlights practical and legal questions about informed consent, sedation, and clinic practices. It reveals the personal consequences for a public figure whose appearance and schedule are tied to work opportunities. And it spotlights the broader conversation—among patients, regulators and medical professionals—about how to prevent and respond to adverse events from cosmetic procedures.

This article reconstructs the timeline reported by Kwon Mina, explains the technology behind the Shurink procedure and the types of complications that can arise, outlines relevant standards of care and redress options, and offers practical guidance for patients and clinics. The goal is to provide a clear, actionable primer for anyone seeking to understand what happened, why thermal injuries occur in cosmetic settings, and what steps can reduce the risk and improve outcomes.

What Kwon Mina reported: timeline, symptoms and immediate impact

Kwon Mina says she underwent a Shurink lifting procedure on January 24, 2026. She reports receiving 600 shots while sedated. When she awoke she experienced intense pain and observed that layers of skin were peeling, with visible blisters and fluid forming on both cheeks and the neck. She described the sensation as if her skin were being torn apart.

According to her post, the clinic did not present a new consent form nor perform a fresh skin check prior to that session, asserting that a consent form signed in October 2025 covered subsequent visits. Kwon Mina claims she was not given a detailed explanation of Shurink—how it works, its expected effects, or its potential side effects—before the procedure this time. After the injury, she says the pain and visible damage prompted panic attacks and forced postponement or cancellation of scheduled work. Her mother reportedly discovered the injured state of her face and was distraught.

She also placed the incident into a wider personal context: she is the ongoing victim in long‑running civil and criminal legal matters and has previously revealed experiences of abuse and group violence. She expressed frustration at how the legal system treats victims, and anger at what she perceives as inadequate attention to victims’ dignity.

Public reaction, as shown in comment excerpts circulating on news portals, ranged from concern and sympathy to skepticism and fatigue. Some commenters worried about scarring; others questioned the frequency with which she appears in news cycles. The mix of responses underscores how celebrity health incidents are viewed both as medical problems and as public narratives shaping reputation and career opportunities.

What is Shurink and how such devices can cause burns

Shurink is a branded treatment based on high‑intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), marketed for noninvasive skin lifting and tightening. HIFU devices deliver focused ultrasound energy beneath the skin surface, generating localized heat that targets deeper tissue layers—typically the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) and subdermal layers—intended to stimulate collagen production and produce a tightening effect without surgical incisions.

The mechanisms that deliver therapeutic effects are the same mechanisms that can cause harm when energy application is inappropriate for the tissue, mis‑targeted, or applied with excessive intensity or duration. Thermal injury arises when heat delivered by the ultrasound causes protein denaturation and cellular death in unintended zones. Clinically, this can present as:

Erythema (redness) and swelling in the hours after treatment.
Blister formation and serous fluid discharge when the epidermis is damaged or separated from underlying tissue.
Full‑thickness or partial‑thickness burns that may lead to scarring and pigmentary changes.
Neuropathic pain or sensory changes if heat affects small cutaneous nerves.
Secondary infection if blisters rupture and skin barrier integrity is compromised.

The likelihood of such injuries depends on multiple factors: device settings (energy level and shot density), operator training and technique, patient skin type and sensitivity, prior treatments or procedures in the same area, comorbid conditions (like autoimmune disease or dermatologic disorders), and whether the device is used according to manufacturer guidance.

A report of 600 shots during a single session is notable because shot number combined with energy per shot and overlap patterns can materially increase cumulative tissue heating. Sedation can complicate risk because an unconscious or sedated patient cannot give instant feedback about pain that might indicate excessive energy deposition, and an operator may have less real‑time patient response to moderate or stop the treatment.

Clinical standards: informed consent, sedation and pre‑procedure evaluation

In medical and aesthetic practice, informed consent is not a mere administrative form. It is a process of communication and documentation in which the provider explains the nature of the procedure, anticipated benefits, alternative options, probable risks and complications, and reasonable expectations for recovery. Informed consent requires current, case‑specific discussion. Relying on a dated consent form that covered a different procedure or different parameters undermines the purpose of consent.

Pre‑procedure skin checks and photographic documentation are standard practice among reputable clinics. A proper skin assessment identifies high‑risk features: active dermatitis, recent sunburn, recent chemical peels or laser resurfacing, compromised barrier function, or a history of poor wound healing. If any red flags exist, the clinician should postpone or modify treatment.

Sedation raises an additional layer of responsibility. Mild sedation or local anesthetic may be appropriate for comfort during certain procedures, but when sedation deepens into levels where the patient cannot reliably provide feedback, practitioners must ensure appropriate monitoring, airway management and documented consent that specifically addresses sedation risks. Facilities administering sedation should meet standards for patient monitoring, emergency response and staffing.

Regulatory frameworks require clinics and practitioners to follow applicable medical laws, licensing requirements and device instructions. The standards differ by jurisdiction, but core expectations persist: demonstrate competency with the device, record baseline assessments and consent, follow manufacturer settings, and provide clear aftercare guidance.

In the present case, Kwon Mina alleges she received neither a fresh consent nor a pre‑procedure skin check. If validated, those omissions would raise questions about the clinic's adherence to basic standards of care.

Medical care for burns from cosmetic energy devices

Management of burns from cosmetic devices must be prompt and appropriate. Early care reduces the risk of infection, limits scarring, and improves cosmetic outcomes. Key steps include:

Immediate assessment by a qualified clinician—preferably a dermatologist or plastic surgeon with experience in iatrogenic burns.
Wound care to preserve skin integrity: gentle cleansing, appropriate dressings, and monitoring for signs of infection. Blisters are managed according to size and location; small intact blisters may be left intact to protect the underlying skin, while large or tense blisters might require sterile drainage.
Pain control with systemic analgesics and adjunctive topical agents. Thermal injuries often cause severe pain that requires active management.
Early referral for scar prevention strategies when burns are partial‑thickness or deeper. Silicone sheeting, pressure therapy, corticosteroid injections for hypertrophic scarring and laser therapies are commonly used interventions depending on the scar type and timing.
Psychological support. Facial burns, beyond physical pain, can cause significant emotional distress, social withdrawal, anxiety and depression. Access to mental health services and peer support groups improves coping and adherence to treatment plans.
Documentation and photographic records for both medical and medico‑legal purposes.

Second‑degree burns—sometimes described clinically as partial‑thickness burns—vary in depth. Superficial partial‑thickness burns may heal with conservative care and minimal scarring over weeks, whereas deep partial‑thickness injury often requires surgical intervention and carries a higher risk of permanent scarring and pigmentary change.

Legal avenues: civil, criminal and regulatory remedies

When a patient suffers an injury from a cosmetic procedure, several avenues for redress may exist simultaneously: civil suits for damages, regulatory complaints to health authorities or licensing boards, and, in some cases, criminal proceedings if actions amount to gross negligence or unlawful medical practice.

Civil claims generally focus on negligence—did the provider breach the standard of care and cause harm? Plaintiffs typically seek compensation for medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and, when applicable, damage to professional reputation. Evidence in such cases includes medical records, photographic documentation, expert testimony on standard practice, and records of consent and communication.

Regulatory complaints trigger investigations by health authorities or professional boards. Investigators examine whether clinics adhered to licensing requirements, device misuse, failures in informed consent, or lapses in sterile technique and safety procedures. Outcomes range from fines and mandated corrective actions to suspension of licenses.

Criminal charges in the context of medical procedures are less common but possible if conduct meets statutory thresholds—for example, if a non‑licensed provider performs invasive procedures or if intentional harm can be proven. The burden for criminal conviction is higher, and the prosecution must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kwon Mina states that she is already a victim in long‑running civil and criminal legal matters unrelated to this cosmetic injury. She now says the burn incident will intersect with both civil and criminal processes. Her allegation that the clinic relied on an old consent form and failed to perform a new pre‑procedure assessment is likely to be central to any civil negligence claim or disciplinary complaint.

Why sedation complicates safety and consent

Sedation can improve tolerance for painful or prolonged procedures, but it also removes an important built‑in safety mechanism: a patient's immediate feedback. When a patient is awake, sudden intense pain or unexpected sensations may prompt either the patient or the operator to stop, reposition or lower energy. Sedation can mask those warning signals.

Best practice requires:

Explicit consent that distinguishes between sedation and general anesthesia, explains monitoring and recovery expectations, and documents alternatives.
Pre‑sedation evaluation including medical history, medications, allergies and fasting status.
Appropriate monitoring during and after the procedure (blood pressure, oxygen saturation, airway vigilance).
Qualified personnel trained in sedation management and emergency response on site.

If sedation is used, the operator must justify why sedation is necessary for a given non‑surgical aesthetic procedure and ensure the facility is equipped to manage sedation‑related risks. The failure to obtain consent specific to sedation, or to document monitoring, heightens legal exposure when adverse events occur.

Psychological toll and career impact for public figures

Facial disfigurement or visible injury carries unique implications for individuals in the public eye. For entertainers, idols and public personalities, facial appearance is often linked to professional roles, contract obligations and public perception. An injury that alters appearance can lead to canceled commitments, loss of endorsements, and long periods of recovery that threaten income and career momentum.

Beyond professional setbacks, visible injuries can trigger severe psychological distress. Facial burns alter identity and self‑image. Kwon Mina reports panic attacks after the procedure and expresses despair about lost opportunities. Research in burn survivors shows elevated rates of anxiety, depression, social isolation and post‑traumatic stress symptoms, particularly when the injury is on the face. Early psychological intervention and rehabilitation are integral parts of recovery.

Public scrutiny adds another burden. Celebrities often face intense media coverage and social commentary—ranging from sympathy to skepticism—complicating recovery. Support from medical teams, management, family and mental health professionals is critical.

Industry responses and regulatory precedents

Energy‑based cosmetic devices have undergone intermittent scrutiny from regulators worldwide. Reports of burns associated with HIFU and certain radiofrequency devices have prompted safety alerts, updated guidance on operator training, and calls for stricter oversight of device marketing and clinic practices.

Regulatory bodies emphasize a few recurring themes:

Devices should be used only by trained and credentialed personnel who understand device physics and clinical indications.
Manufacturers’ instructions must be followed precisely for energy settings, shot spacing and treatment depths.
Clear labeling and marketing are necessary so patients understand what a device does and what risks it carries.
Clinics should keep detailed records—consent forms, treatment parameters, pre‑ and post‑procedure photographs, and follow‑up notes.

Past high‑profile adverse event clusters have led to temporary moratoria, product recalls or enhanced training requirements in some jurisdictions. Where regulators have enforced consequences, outcomes included mandatory retraining, fines, and removal of specific devices from the market pending safety reviews.

The clinic community has pushed back in part by emphasizing the role of operator error and patient selection in complications. That stance reinforces that a device used correctly by an informed and competent practitioner can carry lower risk than the same device used incorrectly or in unsuitable patients.

Practical guidance for patients considering non‑surgical lifting procedures

Patients seeking non‑surgical facial rejuvenation should approach the decision with the same rigor as for any medical intervention. The following checklist helps reduce risk and ensures expectations align with likely outcomes:

Verify the provider’s qualifications. Check medical licensing, specialty training (dermatology or plastic surgery), and specific training with the device in question.
Ask about the device and manufacturer. Request the device name, model and intended indications. Confirm the device is approved for the treatment in your jurisdiction.
Request a current, detailed informed consent discussion and form. Ensure the consent addresses device risks, expected outcomes, alternative treatments, and sedation if it will be used.
Insist on a documented skin assessment and pre‑treatment photography. Ask about any factors that increase your risk—recent laser, peeling, sun exposure, or a history of poor wound healing.
Discuss the number of shots, energy settings and treatment plan. High shot counts or overlapping energy may be appropriate in some contexts but should be justified clinically.
Clarify sedation plans. If sedation is proposed, ask why it is necessary, what level will be used, who will administer it, and how monitoring will be handled.
Understand post‑procedure care. Obtain written aftercare instructions and emergency contact details for complications.
Check clinic infection control and emergency preparedness. Facilities should be equipped to handle unexpected events.
Read independent reviews and seek a second opinion if unsure. A consult with a board‑certified specialist provides an objective perspective.
Know your rights. Ask about refund or remedy policies if complications occur, and learn how to file complaints with local medical boards or consumer protection agencies.

These steps do not eliminate risk, but they materially reduce the likelihood of surprise injuries and strengthen the patient’s position should an adverse event occur.

What victims should do immediately after a suspected procedure‑related burn

If a patient experiences signs of thermal injury after a cosmetic treatment—severe pain, blistering, fluid leakage, extensive redness, or sensory deficit—follow a clear sequence:

Seek immediate medical assessment from a qualified clinician (dermatologist, plastic surgeon or burn specialist). Early professional evaluation reduces long‑term damage.
Photograph the injury with timestamped images from multiple angles and in good light. Continue serial photography to document progression or healing.
Preserve clinic documentation: copies of consent forms, payment receipts, treatment records and any written aftercare instructions. Request a copy if not provided.
Record conversations with the clinic, including the names of staff and details of verbal explanations. If possible, obtain a written account from the clinic about the treatment settings used.
Follow medical advice for wound care and pain control. Avoid home remedies that risk infection or injury to healing tissue.
Consider filing a regulatory complaint with the appropriate medical licensing body and a consumer complaint if relevant. These complaints can prompt investigations and preserve evidence.
Consult a legal professional if contemplating civil action. An attorney experienced in medical malpractice or cosmetic procedure claims can advise on timelines, evidence needs and possible outcomes.
Seek psychological support. The emotional toll of a facial injury deserves professional attention alongside physical care.

Acting quickly preserves medical options and strengthens any subsequent legal claims.

The broader industry question: training, accountability and consumer protection

The rise of non‑surgical aesthetic procedures has expanded access to treatments once limited to operating rooms. That expansion has created two parallel challenges: ensuring operators have the technical competence required for sophisticated devices, and ensuring consumers receive the protections of informed medical practice.

Professional societies and regulators are grappling with how to balance innovation, access and safety. Potential policy responses include:

Stricter training and credentialing requirements tied to specific devices.
Mandatory reporting of serious adverse events and centralized registries so patterns can trigger investigations.
Standardized consent forms and minimum pre‑treatment assessment checklists.
Clearer marketing standards to prevent overstatement of benefits and understatement of risks.
Periodic auditing of clinics and spot checks of compliance with safety protocols.

Industry self‑regulation helps but cannot wholly replace external oversight. Public confidence depends on transparent systems that catch recurrent problems and deliver remedies to harmed patients.

Putting Kwon Mina’s case in context: what it may mean for patients and providers

The specifics of each incident determine legal and medical boundaries. If investigations confirm that a clinic used excessive energy settings, neglected pre‑procedure checks, failed to document consent or administered inadequate sedation monitoring, those failures strengthen claims of negligence and possible regulatory sanctions. If, however, the clinic can document adherence to accepted protocols and a rare idiosyncratic patient reaction occurred, that will shape outcomes differently.

Regardless of the eventual legal resolution, several practical consequences are likely:

Heightened public scrutiny of the clinic and possibly of Shurink/HIFU treatments in the local market.
Renewed calls for clearer consent processes and for transparency when sedation is used in non‑surgical clinics.
A reminder for patients to treat non‑surgical treatments as medical procedures that warrant the same precautions and documentation as surgeries.
Potential changes in industry practice if regulators conclude gaps exist in training, monitoring or device management.

For clinicians, the incident reinforces the imperative to document thoroughly, to communicate risks plainly and to avoid shortcuts in consent and pre‑procedure preparation. For patients, it underscores the importance of insisting on those practices.

Real‑world examples illustrating risk and response

Instances of thermal injury following energy‑based aesthetic treatments have played out in multiple settings. Common patterns emerge:

Clinics using newly marketed devices without sufficient operator training see higher rates of complications until training and protocols mature.
Cases in which patients had recent ablative treatments or thin, compromised skin—conditions that raise susceptibility to burns—show that proper screening prevents many injuries.
Events where sedation masked patient feedback highlight why operators must not rely solely on patient reports during sedated procedures and must monitor objectively for signs of impending injury.

Some jurisdictions have responded to clusters of adverse events by issuing safety advisories, mandating retraining for practitioners, or restricting certain device uses to hospital settings. Those responses illustrate the regulatory levers available to reduce risk and protect consumers.

How clinicians can rebuild trust after adverse events

When an adverse event occurs, the clinic’s immediate response shapes public perception and legal exposure. Best practices include:

Prompt acknowledgment of the patient’s condition and clear, compassionate communication. Avoid minimization or defensiveness.
Immediate facilitation of appropriate medical care, including referral to specialists. Covering reasonable medical costs for emergent care is often expected when the clinic’s role is implicated.
Transparent documentation of treatment parameters and staffing present during the procedure.
Cooperation with regulatory investigations while protecting patient confidentiality.
Implementation of corrective actions when lapses are identified, and transparent communication about those changes to rebuild trust.

Attempts to obscure facts or shift blame almost never serve the patient or the provider in the long run.

Closing observation

Kwon Mina’s account of severe facial burns following a Shurink session crystallizes many persistent issues around aesthetic medicine: the power of energy‑based treatments to transform appearance and the very real risk of harm when safety processes break down. It also reminds clinicians that informed consent, careful patient selection and measured use of sedation are not optional. For patients, it is a stark prompt to treat cosmetic decisions as medical decisions—demanding clear answers, documentation and contingency planning.

As investigations and any legal proceedings progress, the case will test existing safeguards and could influence how clinics, regulators and patients approach non‑surgical cosmetic care going forward.

FAQ

Q: What is Shurink and how does it differ from lasers or radiofrequency devices?
A: Shurink is a brand of HIFU (high‑intensity focused ultrasound) device that delivers focused ultrasound energy into deeper tissue layers, targeting structures like the SMAS to stimulate collagen. Lasers typically target more superficial skin layers (based on light wavelengths), while radiofrequency devices use electrical currents to heat tissue. HIFU’s focal heating can be effective but, if misapplied, cause deeper thermal injury.

Q: Can HIFU treatments cause second‑degree burns?
A: Yes. Thermal energy delivered to skin or subdermal tissues can produce partial‑thickness (second‑degree) burns if energy is excessive, overlapping shots are applied, the device is misused, or the skin is otherwise compromised. Symptoms include blistering, significant pain, fluid discharge and peeling.

Q: Is sedation common for HIFU treatments, and does it increase risk?
A: Sedation is sometimes used for patient comfort, but it increases risk because sedated patients cannot provide immediate feedback about pain that might indicate excessive energy delivery. When sedation is used, clinics should follow strict monitoring protocols and obtain specific consent addressing sedation risks.

Q: What should a patient do immediately after experiencing burns from a cosmetic procedure?
A: Seek immediate medical assessment from a qualified clinician, document the injury with photographs, preserve and request copies of all clinic records and consent forms, follow medical wound‑care advice, and consider filing complaints with medical regulators and consulting a lawyer if pursuing civil claims.

Q: What are typical long‑term outcomes for facial burns from cosmetic devices?
A: Outcomes vary by burn depth and management. Superficial partial‑thickness burns often heal with minimal scarring over weeks, while deeper burns may require surgical intervention and carry a higher risk of permanent scarring and pigment changes. Early specialist care and scar management improve results.

Q: Are there legal protections if a clinic reuses an old consent form?
A: Reusing an outdated consent form that does not reflect the current procedure, sedation or risks can undermine the validity of consent and strengthen a patient’s legal claim that they were not properly informed. Legal remedies depend on the jurisdiction, the specifics of the case and available evidence.

Q: How can patients verify a clinic’s competency with a device like Shurink?
A: Ask for the provider’s medical credentials, training certificates specific to the device, the device make and model, manufacturer training requirements, and evidence of experience (before‑and‑after photos and patient references). Verify that the device is approved for the intended use in your jurisdiction.

Q: Will regulators act if a single adverse event occurs?
A: Regulators typically investigate individual serious adverse events, especially if there is documented negligence or device misuse. They are more likely to act decisively if patterns of harm emerge across multiple reports.

Q: What questions should a patient ask before consenting to a non‑surgical cosmetic treatment?
A: Who will perform the procedure and what are their qualifications? What device will be used and what are its risks? Will sedation be used and why? What are the expected benefits and realistic outcomes? What are the possible side effects and complications? What aftercare is required, and who is responsible for follow‑up? Request written answers.

Q: How can clinicians prevent similar incidents in their practice?
A: Maintain device‑specific training and certification, perform thorough pre‑procedure skin assessments, obtain fresh and procedure‑specific informed consent, document treatment parameters and monitoring, avoid unnecessary sedation, and ensure emergency and follow‑up care systems are in place.

Q: Where can victims file complaints in South Korea?
A: Victims can file complaints with local health authorities, the Korea Medical Association, or other regulatory agencies that oversee medical licensing and consumer protection. Legal counsel can assist in navigating complaint procedures and potential civil or criminal claims.

Q: Does a celebrity’s public disclosure affect legal proceedings?
A: Public disclosure may influence public sentiment and can draw attention to a case, but legal proceedings are decided on evidence and law. Public statements may affect reputational considerations but do not substitute for formal legal filings and documented proof.

Q: How long does it take to recover from second‑degree facial burns?
A: Recovery timelines vary. Some partial‑thickness burns heal in weeks with careful care, while deeper partial‑thickness burns may require months of treatment and rehabilitation, and scarring may persist without targeted interventions. Early specialist involvement shortens recovery and improves outcomes.