Eye Protection Devices

55 YOM REPORTS EYE PAIN. STATES WAS WORKING IN HIS YARD AT HOME TODAY, WAS WEARING SAFETY GLASSES AT THE TIME AND REPORTS STARTED HAVING A BURNING SENSATION IN THE R EYE. DX: CONJUNCTIVAL ABRASION.

35YOM PRESENTS WITH EYE PAIN. HE STATES HE WAS WELDING YESTERDAY AND RAISED HIS WELDING HOOD TO SEE WHAT HE WAS DOING AND HE GOT A FLASH BURN. HE IS COMPLAINING OF FACIAL PAIN AND CHANGES IN VISION. EXAM CONSISTENT WITH KERATITIS. DX: KERATITIS WELDERS BILATERAL

26YOM C/O METAL SHAVINGS GETTING INTO EYE WHILE WEARING PROTECTIVE GLASSESDX FB EYE

43YOM PT W/NO PERTINENT PMHX TO THE ED W/CC OF EYE INJ.PT STS THAT ABOUT 24 HRS AGO HE WAS CUTTING METAL, WEARING GOGGLES, BUT A PIECE OF METAL GOT INTO HIS EYE. HE ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE IT WITH A *** BUT WAS UNABLE TO DO SO. DENIES BLURRY VISION OR ANY OTHER VISION DISTRUBANCES. DX: LEFT EYE INJURY

69YOM PATIENT WAS CHOPPED WOOD YESTERDAY, WAS WEARING PROTECTIVE GOGGLES, EYE PAIN DX: ABRASION OF LEFT CORNEA, SUBCONJUNTIVAL HEMORRHAGE OF LEFT EYE

53YOM PATIENT WAS WORKING WITH HIS SAFETY GLASSES ON, A PIECE OF METAL SHAVING WENT INTO HIS EYE BENEATH THE SAFETY GLASSES. DX: PAIN IN RIGHT EYE

76 YOM TRIPPED AND FELL ON PARKING LOT WHILE OUT WALKING HIS DOG, DOES NOT TAKE BLOOD THINNERS, HAS A LACERATION TO HIS NOSE FROM HIS SUNGLASSES, DX: NASAL LACERATION

15 YOM WAS ON A BOAT, LEANED OVER TO PICKUP SUNGLASS BOAT RAIL PRESSED INTO CHEST DX CHEST WALL PAIN

64 YOM WAS WORKING ON HIS RV LOOKING INTO THE EXHAUST WHEN THERE WAS A SUDDEN BACKFIRE AND BRIEF BLAST OF FLAME HITTING HIS FACE. PT WAS WEARING EYE PROTECTION. FD NS. DX: FACIAL BURN SECOND DEGREE

53YOF, ATTEMPTING TO CATCH HER DAUGHTER WHO WAS UNDERGOING AN EPISODE OF SYNCOPE YET HER DAUGHTER WAS TOO HEAVY FOR HER AND BOTH FELL COMPLAINING OF SHOULDER PAIN AND ABRASION TO FACE FROM HER SUNGLASSES, DX: ACUTE PAIN OF RIGHT SHOULDER

39YOM, WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND HAD STOPPED TO PICK UP HIS PARTNER'S SUNGLASSES WHEN HE WAS HIT BY A CAR DX: TYPE I OR II OPEN FRACTURE OF LEFT LOWER EXTREMITY

70YOF PRESENTS WITH RIGHT EYE PAIN AFTER SHE WAS TRIMMING A TREE WHEN THE BRANCH CAME BACK AND HIT HER IN HER RIGHT EYE. SHE WAS WEARING PROTECTIVE GLASSES AND THE GLASSES BROKE AND HIT HER FACE LATERAL TO HER EYE. SHE DOES HAVE PAIN WITH MOVING THE EYE AND NOTICED THERE IS SOME SWELLING AND REDNESS AROUND THE EYE AS WELL. DX: RIGHT EYE PAIN

I bought a pair of Foster Grant (FG) plastic frame sunglasses from CVS drugstore in Feb 2023. These sunglasses leave a gray film on my skin where the frames touch my skin. I can't return them to CVS because the receipt return date has expired; I only started wearing them in June. I contacted Foster Grant and told them the problem; they said they had heard of the problem happening before. FG told me to wash the glasses in dish soap; I did this three separate times but the problem persists. I have an older pair of FG plastic frame sunglasses, and this problem did not happen wth them, even with wearing the same sunscreen. I'd like the newish pair of FG sunglasses to be tested for toxicity. Even if the gray residue it leaves on my skin is not harmful, it's messy. I'd like FG to be contacted and told of your findings. Ultimately, I'd like the problem to be fixed on future manufacturing of these sunglasses.

Purchased XX2i sunglasses from Running and Cycling Enterprises. These sunglasses have removable plastic sleeves on the part that goes behind the ear. I did not realize at the time that they were removable or could come loose. I was riding my bike and took the glasses off to go through a tunnel. The sleeve inadvertently remained behind my ear as it was trapped by the helmet strap. I did not realize that this had happened. Unfortunately the glasses have very sharp spike on the end underneath the sleeves. When I put the glasses back on, I poked myself in the eye with the sharp spike. No serious injury occurred, but it could have. It was sore for a few days, but is OK now. Of course with the plastic sleeve intact, no injury can occur. The problem with this product is that the sleeves are not fastened on robustly and if they are intended to be removable, the end of the ear bar cannot be this sharp. The glasses are marketed at cyclist, so what happened is easily predictable. I contacted xx2i on May 28th 2018 indicating that I had poked myself in the ear when the part came off. I expected a response in return about the safety of the product. What I recieved in return was warranty information asking for $20 to replace the glasses! This was missing the point completely about the safety. xx2i responded with a survey question asking if I was happy with the response. I said no, but they never responded.

Jolly Jumper Bumber Bonnet Toddler Head Cushion is one of the companies that sold these items, along with others. Some styles close with a clip undneath the chin and the consumer said those were much safer. She said that this is being pushed by Amazon, as Amazon’s Choice on their Prime platform. The caller also said that owners who have purchased the product indicate that they think that it’s unsafe. She believes the product presents a strangulation hazard. She has also seen videos of children, where the helmet slid down on a child’s head and presented a strangulations hazard. Another consumer wrote online that it slides around and she has to tie a double knot to prevent it from moving. Various names and versions can be found on the Internet. [REDACTED] The consumer does not own 1, never purchased one, but is extremely concerned for other parents.

I purchased Nice'n Clean Lens Wipes at Walmart. The packaging clearly states "Safe on anti-reflective coating" and "Non-scratching and non-streaking". I used the product, on my glasses with anti-reflective coating, daily for a week. I began to notice that my glass lens appeared foggy and did not seem to be clean after using the wipes. So I stopped using the product and had my eye doctor look at the lens. The eye doctor found a number of micro-scratches on the surface of the lens that appeared to be caused by wiping the glass lens. The lens could not be repair, they would need to be replaced at a cost of $694. I contact the company's consumer affairs department by phone. They recorded the information and asked me to send them the invoice for the replacement lens and a photo of the damaged lens. I provide all information requested. Later I received an email from the consumer affairs department stating that my reimbursement claim was reject by their legal team. I requested that they provide a reason and consumer affairs contact replied that the legal team will communicate to me regarding my request. It has been over a month and the Nice'n Clean Legal Team has not communicated to me. I've report the product issue to Walmart's Consumer Services department. They took my information but would not provide me feedback on their investigation nor how it will be resolved. I suggested to Walmart that this product should be taken off the shelves due to miss leading claims. It is unsafe for use as described and will cause damage to lens.

This is report of a safety concern and incident regarding KOALA KIDS GIRLS PINK 3D EASTER BUNNY EARS SUNGLASSES WITH BOW AND HEART DETAIL. These sunglasses were purchased as a gift in a Babies R Us store in MArch/April 2015. MY 2 year old daughter wore these sunglasses during a trip to the [REDACTED] Aquarium in [REDACTED]. She was walking on smooth, level, concrete ground in front of the aquarium entrance. She tripped and fell forward. When her face hit the ground, the adornments on the edges of the sunglasses dug into her forehead, lacerating a portion of her skin vertically above her eyebrows. The injury resulted in an emergency department visit immediately following the injury at [REDACTED] Medical Center. The next morning she was put under anesthesia while a plastic surgeon repaired the damage, using stiches, glue, and bandages. She now must miss 2 weeks of school in order to protect the injury site from sun and physical impact. This means both parents miss work to care for her.

I bought a pair of Minnie Mouse sunglasses at Target for my 19 mos old. The package says Minnie Mouse Boutique and the manurfacturer is Pan Oceanic Eyewear. They were a pink pair of Minnie Mouse sunglasses with pink tinted lenses and a small red plastic bow on the frame. I didn't realize that this small plastic bow was removable until after my daugher swallowed it. I am really upset that this package does not contain a small parts warning label. Worse, the glasses were sold with other brands on a Target display that was directly above swimsuits sized for infants up to 5T so it isn't like I gave my 19 mos old "big girl" sunglasses. They were directly marketed to parents shopping in the toddler section. When the incident happened, it was a Saturday. I contacted the on-call nurse through our health insurance and our family practitioner on Monday. Both advised that the object would pass naturally within 7-10 days. I would NOT have bought this product if it had been properly labeled. I've sent formal complaints to Target (seller), Disney (brand), and Pan Oceanic Eyewear (manufacturer) but have not received many responses. These sunglasses present an obvious choking hazard. Thankfully, my daughter did not require medical treatment but I would hate for some other family's child to swallow this bow with disastrous results.

I wore these sunglasses almost daily for a couple of monthstypically 4 to 5 hours a daywhile working outdoors, recreating, and driving. It was during this exact period that I developed two small growths on my nose and one on my brow which appear to be permanent at this point. I stopped wearing the glasses immediately, and for over a year since, Ive undergone extensive topical peptide treatment to try to treat them. While the growths have diminished significantlydown to the sizes shown in the accompanying photosthey were initially 3 to 4 times larger. From the moment I opened the box, the glasses emitted a strong chemical odor, especially from the blue rubber nose piece that extends both down the bridge of the nose and up toward the brow. The smell was similar to DEET or another potent bug repellent. Its worth noting that these sunglasses come with a California Proposition 65 warning, indicating they may contain chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Given the strong timing correlation, the chemical odor, and the location of the growths directly under the rubber contact areas, it seems highly likely that these glasses were the cause. I'm sorry to write this because the glasses seemed to be very well designed otherwise.

I received a severe skin reaction (contact dermatitis) caused by a reaction to a component in a pair of Gascan Cerakote Collectiom Iron Gray/Prism Black Polarized sunglasses. It resembled a chemical burn and caused pain, itchiness, discomfort and took several days to heal.