Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies R&D Agreement In connection with the Company’s anticipated regulatory filings, the Company has engaged StemCell Systems GmbH (“StemCell Systems”) to provide it with prototypes and related documents under various agreements. On July 1, 2020, the Company and StemCell Systems entered into a Strategic R&D Agreement (the “Strategic Agreement”) having an initial term of three years with successive one-year extensions unless earlier terminated. The Strategic Agreement includes a $27,000 monthly fee to be paid to StemCell Systems along with any additional expenses incurred. The Company, StemCell Systems and certain affiliates of StemCell Systems entered into a Rights of First Refusal and Corporate Opportunities Agreement (the “ROFR Agreement”). Pursuant to the ROFR Agreement, (i) in the event a StemCell Systems stockholder receives an offer from a third party to acquire the StemCell Systems stockholders ownership interest, the Company shall have ten business days to purchase such ownership, and (ii) if during the terms of the Strategic Agreement, any StemCell Systems inventions, with respect to skin, burns and wounds, designs, inventions and among other things, whether or not patentable, copyrightable or otherwise legally protectable are discovered by StemCell Systems, the Company shall have the first option to negotiate mutually agreeable terms for the Company’s acquisition or licensing of the StemCell Systems inventions. Pursuant to these engagements the Company incurred expenses of approximately $523,840 and $480,000 during the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Pursuant to the Strategic Agreement, as of December, 31, 2021, should the Company terminate the Strategic Agreement, the Company would be obligated to pay approximately $468,000. Legal Proceedings *SEC Civil Complaint* On May 28, 2021 the SEC filed a civil complaint (the “SEC Complaint”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and Harmel S. Rayat, the Company’s current President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Sole Director as defendants as defendants (the “Defendants”). The SEC Complaint alleges among other things that Mr. Rayat and the Company with violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and also alleges that Mr. Rayat with aided and abetted the Company's violations of those provisions. The SEC Complaint also alleges that the Company with violated the reporting provisions of Exchange Act Section 15(d) and Rules 15d-11 and 12b-20 thereunder. The SEC seeks, among other relief, permanent injunctions and civil penalties against the Defendants, and officer-and-director and penny stock bars against Mr. Rayat. On August 31, 2021 the Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint. On September 21, 2021, the SEC filed a motion to strike Defendants equitable affirmative defenses which motion was granted by the court on October 18, 2021. The Company continues to defend itself and the named individuals against the allegations set forth in the SEC Complaint. *Class Action Complaints* On July 16, 2021, Gabrielle A. Boller filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Boller Lawsuit”), against the Company and certain past and current officers and members of the Company’s board of directors (collectively, the “Boller Defendants”). The Boller Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that in connection with the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint, the Boller Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The plaintiff seeks a determination that the Boller Lawsuit is a proper class action, compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and other class members, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the Boller Lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. The Company disputes the plaintiffs’ claims in the Boller Lawsuit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Boller Defendants. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. On July 21, 2021, Michael Solakian, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Solakian Lawsuit”), against the Company and certain past and current officers and members of the Company’s board of directors (collectively, the “Solakian Defendants”). The Solakian Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that in connection with the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint, the Solakian Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The plaintiff seeks a determination that the Solakian Lawsuit is a proper class action, compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and other class members, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the Solakian Lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. The Company disputes the plaintiffs’ claims in the Solakian Lawsuit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Solakian Defendants. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. *Shareholder Derivative Complaints* On December 20, 2021, Melvin Emberland (“Emberland”), derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Renovacare, Inc. filed a lawsuit (the “Emberland Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers (the “Emberland Defendants”). In the complaint, Emberland’s allegations, relating to the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint include, but are not limited to (i) breach of fiduciary duties by the individual Emberland Defendants, (ii) unjust enrichment and (iii) violation of Section 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Emberland did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Emberland seeks (i) a declaration that the Emberland Defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company, (ii) a determination awarding to the Company restitution from the Meyer Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Emberland Defendants, (iii) a directive to the Company and the Emberland Defendants to take all necessary actions to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws, and (iv) Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, restitution from the individual Emberland Defendants and disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by such Emberland Defendants, costs and disbursements of the action including reasonable attorney’s fees, accountants’ and expert fees and expenses, an order directing the taking of certain corporate actions relating to its board of directors and corporate governance. The Company disputes Emberland’s claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Emberland Defendants. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. On January 6, 2022, Zoser Vargas (“Vargas”), derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Renovacare, Inc. filed a lawsuit (the “Vargas Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers (the “Vargas Defendants”). In the complaint Vargas’ allegations relating to the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint include but are not limited to, (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) waste of corporate assets, (iii) violation of law, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Vargas did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Meyer seeks, in addition to other things, (i) against the Vargas Defendants and in favor of the Company the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Vargas Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, (ii) directive for the Company to take all necessary actions to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law and (iii) awarding to the Company restitution from the Vargas Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Vargas Defendants. The Company disputes Vargas’ claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Vargas Defendants. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. On January 28, 2022, Aviva Meyer (“Meyer”), derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Renovacare, Inc. filed a lawsuit (the “Meyer Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers (the “Meyer Defendants”). In the complaint Meyer’s allegations relating to the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint include but are not limited to, (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) waste of corporate assets, (iii) violation of law, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Vargas did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Meyer seeks, in addition to other things, (i) against the Vargas Defendants and in favor of the Company the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Vargas Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, (ii) directive for the Company to take all necessary actions to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law and (iii) awarding to the Company restitution from the Meyer Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Meyer Defendants. The Company disputes Meyer’s claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Meyer Defendants Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the SEC Complaint, the Boller Lawsuit, the Solakian Lawsuit, the Emberland Lawsuit, the Vargas Lawsuit, and the Meyer Lawsuit (collectively, the “Lawsuits”) are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. As of the date of this Annual Report, the Company has effectively depleted the funds available under its D&O Policy and is responsible for costs related to its defense. See “Note 1. Organization and Liquidity” above for specific estimates.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

R&D Agreement

In connection with the Company’s anticipated regulatory filings, the Company has engaged StemCell Systems GmbH (“StemCell Systems”) to provide it with prototypes and related documents under various agreements. On July 1, 2020, the Company and StemCell Systems entered into a Strategic R&D Agreement (the “Strategic Agreement”) having an initial term of three years with successive one-year extensions unless earlier terminated. The Strategic Agreement includes a $27,000 monthly fee to be paid to StemCell Systems along with any additional expenses incurred. The Company, StemCell Systems and certain affiliates of StemCell Systems entered into a Rights of First Refusal and Corporate Opportunities Agreement (the “ROFR Agreement”). Pursuant to the ROFR Agreement, (i) in the event a StemCell Systems stockholder receives an offer from a third party to acquire the StemCell Systems stockholders ownership interest, the Company shall have ten business days to purchase such ownership, and (ii) if during the terms of the Strategic Agreement, any StemCell Systems inventions, with respect to skin, burns and wounds, designs, inventions and among other things, whether or not patentable, copyrightable or otherwise legally protectable are discovered by StemCell Systems, the Company shall have the first option to negotiate mutually agreeable terms for the Company’s acquisition or licensing of the StemCell Systems inventions. Pursuant to these engagements the Company incurred expenses of approximately $523,840 and $480,000 during the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Pursuant to the Strategic Agreement, as of December, 31, 2021, should the Company terminate the Strategic Agreement, the Company would be obligated to pay approximately $468,000.

Legal Proceedings

SEC Civil Complaint

On May 28, 2021 the SEC filed a civil complaint (the “SEC Complaint”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and Harmel S. Rayat, the Company’s current President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Sole Director as defendants as defendants (the “Defendants”). The SEC Complaint alleges among other things that Mr. Rayat and the Company with violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and also alleges that Mr. Rayat with aided and abetted the Company's violations of those provisions. The SEC Complaint also alleges that the Company with violated the reporting provisions of Exchange Act Section 15(d) and Rules 15d-11 and 12b-20 thereunder. The SEC seeks, among other relief, permanent injunctions and civil penalties against the Defendants, and officer-and-director and penny stock bars against Mr. Rayat. On August 31, 2021 the Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint. On September 21, 2021, the SEC filed a motion to strike Defendants equitable affirmative defenses which motion was granted by the court on October 18, 2021. The Company continues to defend itself and the named individuals against the allegations set forth in the SEC Complaint.

Class Action Complaints

On July 16, 2021, Gabrielle A. Boller filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Boller Lawsuit”), against the Company and certain past and current officers and members of the Company’s board of directors (collectively, the “Boller Defendants”). The Boller Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that in connection with the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint, the Boller Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The plaintiff seeks a determination that the Boller Lawsuit is a proper class action, compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and other class members, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the Boller Lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs’ claims in the Boller Lawsuit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Boller Defendants. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

On July 21, 2021, Michael Solakian, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Solakian Lawsuit”), against the Company and certain past and current officers and members of the Company’s board of directors (collectively, the “Solakian Defendants”). The Solakian Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that in connection with the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint, the Solakian Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The plaintiff seeks a determination that the Solakian Lawsuit is a proper class action, compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and other class members, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the Solakian Lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs’ claims in the Solakian Lawsuit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Solakian Defendants. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

Shareholder Derivative Complaints

On December 20, 2021, Melvin Emberland (“Emberland”), derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Renovacare, Inc. filed a lawsuit (the “Emberland Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers (the “Emberland Defendants”). In the complaint, Emberland’s allegations, relating to the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint include, but are not limited to (i) breach of fiduciary duties by the individual Emberland Defendants, (ii) unjust enrichment and (iii) violation of Section 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Emberland did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Emberland seeks (i) a declaration that the Emberland Defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company, (ii) a determination awarding to the Company restitution from the Meyer Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Emberland Defendants, (iii) a directive to the Company and the Emberland Defendants to take all necessary actions to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws, and (iv) Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, restitution from the individual Emberland Defendants and disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by such Emberland Defendants, costs and disbursements of the action including reasonable attorney’s fees, accountants’ and expert fees and expenses, an order directing the taking of certain corporate actions relating to its board of directors and corporate governance.

The Company disputes Emberland’s claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Emberland Defendants. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

On January 6, 2022, Zoser Vargas (“Vargas”), derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Renovacare, Inc. filed a lawsuit (the “Vargas Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers (the “Vargas Defendants”). In the complaint Vargas’ allegations relating to the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint include but are not limited to, (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) waste of corporate assets, (iii) violation of law, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Vargas did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Meyer seeks, in addition to other things, (i) against the Vargas Defendants and in favor of the Company the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Vargas Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, (ii) directive for the Company to take all necessary actions to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law and (iii) awarding to the Company restitution from the Vargas Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Vargas Defendants.

The Company disputes Vargas’ claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Vargas Defendants. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

On January 28, 2022, Aviva Meyer (“Meyer”), derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Renovacare, Inc. filed a lawsuit (the “Meyer Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers (the “Meyer Defendants”). In the complaint Meyer’s allegations relating to the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint include but are not limited to, (i) breach of fiduciary duties, (ii) waste of corporate assets, (iii) violation of law, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Vargas did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Meyer seeks, in addition to other things, (i) against the Vargas Defendants and in favor of the Company the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Vargas Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, (ii) directive for the Company to take all necessary actions to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law and (iii) awarding to the Company restitution from the Meyer Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Meyer Defendants.

The Company disputes Meyer’s claims and intends to defend these matters vigorously. To that end, the Company has engaged counsel to defend the Meyer Defendants Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the SEC Complaint, the Boller Lawsuit, the Solakian Lawsuit, the Emberland Lawsuit, the Vargas Lawsuit, and the Meyer Lawsuit (collectively, the “Lawsuits”) are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. As of the date of this Annual Report, the Company has effectively depleted the funds available under its D&O Policy and is responsible for costs related to its defense. See “Note 1. Organization and Liquidity” above for specific estimates.