Icy Hot Lawsuit Claims Inadequate Warnings Led to Child’s Second-Degree Chemical Burn

Topical pain relievers like Icy Hot have faced safety concerns after reports indicating the products can cause severe chemical burns.

A Texas woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that an Icy Hot pain-relief product caused her daughter to suffer severe chemical burns and permanent injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kirsten Hokanson on behalf of her 12-year-old daughter LJR in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on July 28, naming Chattem Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC as defendants.

According to the lawsuit, LJR applied Icy Hot to her leg and then covered the area with a sock. Hokanson alleges Chattem failed to warn that covering treated skin could increase the risk of serious burns, causing her daughter to suffer chemical injuries that required painful wound debridement and left permanent discoloration.

Topical Pain Reliever Risks

Icy Hot is a topical pain reliever marketed to provide temporary relief from minor muscle and joint pain. Its active ingredients, which may include menthol, methyl salicylate or camphor, create cooling and warming sensations intended to ease discomfort.

However, Icy Hot and similar topical pain-relief products have also been associated with reports of serious chemical burns and other skin injuries.

In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that widely used creams and gels, including Icy Hot, Bengay and Flexall may cause severe burns. Reported injuries included first-, second- and third-degree chemical burns.

Icy Hot Chemical Burn Allegations

Hokanson’s lawsuit indicates her daughter, LJR, attended dance class on February 4, 2026, where she twisted her ankle. To relieve the pain, the 12-year-old applied Icy Hot Original Strength topical analgesic to her right lower leg and ankle, letting the product dry before putting on a sock and going to sleep.

However, the filing states that LJR awoke later in severe pain. The girl was taken to urgent care the next morning and treated for skin breakdown from severe chemical burn reactions.

LJR was discharged with instructions to perform daily wound care using Silvadene ointment. Her family later sought a second opinion at Shriners Children’s Texas, where she was diagnosed with a second-degree chemical burn covering 1% of her total body surface area on her right lower leg.

She subsequently underwent invasive wound debridement and was administered hydrocodone and midazolam during treatment. The lawsuit alleges the burn also left her with permanent skin depigmentation.

The complaint indicates Icy Hot contains 16% menthol and methyl salicylate as its active ingredients. It is formulated for topical application to the skin for temporary relief of minor aches and pains of muscles and joints. The label contains a warning that says “rare cases of serious burns have been reported.”

However, Hokanson argues there is no warning against covering the treated areas with socks, wraps, bandages, clothing or any other occlusive material. Instead, a warning indicates “do not bandage tightly,” indicating potential dangers from compression, not occlusion.

The filing claims that as an expert in topical pharmaceutical analgesic formulations, Chattem knew or should have known of the product’s risks. It goes on to say the company knew to warn against using a heating pad with Icy Hot but did not include a comparable warning for covering treated areas with any type of material. Therefore, Hokanson states the product lacked adequate warnings and instructions, creating an unreasonable risk of chemical burns to users. Furthermore, she alleges safer designs were available, including formulations with reduced concentrations of active ingredients.

“Chattem is held to the standard of an expert in topical pharmaceutical formulations and is presumed to possess knowledge of the risks attendant to its analgesic formulations, including the risk of occlusion-enhanced chemical injury. The risk of burns from concentrated topical analgesic ingredients under occlusive conditions was known or knowable by application of reasonably developed scientific knowledge at the time the Product was marketed.”

— Kirsten Hokanson v. Chattem, Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict liability—marketing defect and failure to warn, design defect, negligence gross negligence against Chattem, breach of implied warranty of merchantability against both defendants, and products liability as a non-manufacturing seller against Walmart as the retail agent.

Hokanson is seeking compensation for physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish, physical impairment, physical disfigurement, medical expenses and exemplary damages for gross negligence.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.