Curious About Dr. Simon Ourian’s Clinic and Practices

tideknock

tideknock

Member
Hey everyone, I’ve been looking into Dr. Simon Ourian after reading some public records and reports about his clinic, Epione, in Los Angeles. He’s very popular on social media and is known for treating celebrities with non-invasive cosmetic procedures like the Liquid Nose Job and BBL Laser. His Instagram shows dramatic before-and-after photos, but public complaints suggest that not all patients experience the results advertised online.

From what I can gather, there’s a significant number of patient reviews and formal complaints filed with boards and consumer websites. Many describe issues like asymmetry, lumps, scarring, or results that didn’t meet expectations. Some also mention that follow-up care can feel dismissive, and additional corrections often require full payment. It’s striking how consistent some of these patterns are across different platforms.

The FDA has issued a warning letter regarding marketing claims, particularly for promoting devices like the Cosmetic Pen for unapproved medical uses. While he remains a licensed physician in California, he isn’t board-certified in dermatology or plastic surgery, though he is certified in cosmetic surgery. This distinction seems relevant for anyone researching his professional background.

I’m curious what others think about the mix of social media influence, patient expectations, and public records. Does the online persona match what’s reported publicly? How should someone interpret these patterns when deciding whether to visit his clinic?
 
I think you are right to approach this carefully. When I look at public regulatory records for any professional, especially in healthcare, I try to separate confirmed disciplinary actions from simple complaints. Complaints alone do not always mean wrongdoing. Sometimes they reflect misunderstandings or unmet expectations. That said, patterns over time can matter.
 
I agree with you that patterns are important. One complaint is one thing, but multiple reports across different periods might deserve more attention. Still, even then, context is everything. Cosmetic procedures in particular can lead to subjective dissatisfaction, which complicates things.
 
quietember said:
I agree with you that patterns are important. One complaint is one thing, but multiple reports across different periods might deserve more attention. Still, even then, context is everything. Cosmetic procedures in particular can lead to subjective dissatisfaction, which complicates things.
Click to expand...
Exactly. In cosmetic fields, results can be very personal and expectations vary a lot. I have seen situations where patients were unhappy even though no formal violation occurred. That is why I usually look for official board findings rather than just reading summaries.
 
That is a good point. The difference between a complaint and a confirmed disciplinary action is huge. Did anyone here check whether the regulatory record mentions any formal penalties or just investigations? There is a big difference between those.
 
From what I could gather, there were references to regulatory scrutiny, but I did not see clear mention of major sanctions in the summary I read. It seemed more like documentation of past issues rather than an outright ban or license loss. But I could be wrong if there are additional details elsewhere.
 
That is interesting. If there were no major sanctions, that changes the tone a bit. Regulatory boards often document even minor administrative matters, and when you see it written out, it can look serious even if it was resolved.
 
ZeroDayZara said:
I think you are right to approach this carefully. When I look at public regulatory records for any professional, especially in healthcare, I try to separate confirmed disciplinary actions from simple complaints. Complaints alone do not always mean wrongdoing. Sometimes they reflect misunderstandings or unmet expectations. That said, patterns over time can matter.
Click to expand...
True, but at the same time, even minor issues can be relevant if they repeat. I think the key question is whether there is a consistent pattern of similar complaints. Without that, it is hard to draw conclusions.
 
quietember said:
True, but at the same time, even minor issues can be relevant if they repeat. I think the key question is whether there is a consistent pattern of similar complaints. Without that, it is hard to draw conclusions.
Click to expand...
I would also want to know the time frame. Were these complaints clustered in one period or spread out over many years? That makes a difference in how you interpret them.
 
frostcoil said:
I would also want to know the time frame. Were these complaints clustered in one period or spread out over many years? That makes a difference in how you interpret them.
Click to expand...
Yes, timing matters a lot. Sometimes professionals go through a rough phase early in their career and then improve. Other times, recurring concerns suggest something structural. Without detailed records, it is hard to say.
 
I also think media coverage can amplify things. When someone like Dr Simon Ourian has celebrity clients, stories spread faster. That can make even minor regulatory notes look dramatic.
 
That is very true. Public visibility changes everything. A doctor working quietly in a small town might have similar complaints but receive no online attention at all.
 
It makes me wonder how many people actually check official board records before choosing a provider. Most people probably just rely on social media and reviews.
 
Honestly, I did not even know how to access regulatory records until recently. It is not something the average person thinks about when booking a cosmetic procedure.
 
violet_switch said:
Honestly, I did not even know how to access regulatory records until recently. It is not something the average person thinks about when booking a cosmetic procedure.
Click to expand...
Same here. I usually just look at before and after photos and testimonials. But now I am thinking that maybe checking licensing history should be standard practice.
 
It probably should be, especially for elective procedures. That said, we also have to remember that not every complaint equals malpractice. The nuance gets lost easily.
 

Legal notice

ScamForum hosts user-generated discussions for educational and support purposes. Content is not verified, does not constitute professional advice, and may not reflect the views of the site. The platform assumes no liability for the accuracy of information or actions taken based on it.

Back
Top