Medical Device Injuries

Published on: July 14, 2026

Olympus Scopes Litigation Alleges Infections from Reusable Duodenoscopes

sasint-operation-1807543-scaled-e1783882851346 Years ago, lawsuits were brought against manufacturer Olympus based on allegations by patients that they had developed superbug infections after their doctors performed procedures using reusable duodenoscopes on them. These lawsuits are being brought again today. These reusable instruments are used in many, many endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures each year to diagnose and treat problems with the bile ducts, gallbladder, pancreas and liver. In one case, the plaintiff alleges that Olympus didn’t adequately warn doctors, hospitals, and patients that reusable duodenoscopes can retain antibiotic-resistant microorganisms, even when they are properly reprocessed. If you or a loved one was harmed by Olympus Scopes, please call the seasoned Chicago-based lawyers of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

According to many of the plaintiffs in the recent duodenoscope suits, the duodenoscopes had design defects that made the scopes hard to clean such that contaminants stayed on the scopes and came into patients’ bodies during the procedures.

Duodenoscopes are used in hundreds of thousands of endoscopic retrograde (ERCP) procedures every year to examine, diagnose and treat issues in the liver, pancreas, gallbladder and bile ducts. In the early 2010s, there were numerous outbreaks of superbugs across the country. Superbugs are serious because they can resist antibiotics, which makes them especially difficult to address. Superbugs include: C. diff CRE, ESBL, and MRSA. Olympus was required to pay $6.6 million to one hospital because of a superbug outbreak resulting in a patient death in 2017.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 7, 2026

Cartiva Toe Implant Litigation is Centralized

By Moll Law Group

alexis-feet-70573_640-e1773531784153 The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (Cartiva SCI) is a hydrogel implant created to treat painful toe arthritis at the big toe’s base. Recently, plaintiffs in five lawsuits moved under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize litigation about Cartiva toe implants in the District of Maryland or the Northern District of Illinois. There are plaintiffs in nine potential tag-along lawsuits in seven districts, and some of them also supported centralization in the Northern District of Illinois. If you were harmed by Cartiva toe implants, you should give the seasoned Chicago- based medical device lawyers of Moll Law Group a call to determine whether you have a viable claim. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved around the country.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Cartiva Claim

Each of the plaintiffs was implanted with the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant. These implants, which are put in place during a minimally invasive 30-minute outpatient procedure, are supposed to provide a cushioning effect, and allow for the replacement of painful, damaged cartilage without fusion of the joint.

In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs alleged that the implant was defective and that, as a result, they suffered from persistent pain and limited range of motion after being implanted with them and then needed further surgery to remove the failed implants and fuse their arthritic joints. Their claims were for strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 24, 2023

Medline Industries Recalls Hudson RCI Addipak Unit Dose Vial, 0.9% Full Normal Saline Solution Due to Being Non-Sterile

By Moll Law Group

vial-5774206_1280-e1696439634427 Manufacturer Medline Industries initiated a recall of its Hudson RCI Addipak Unit Dose Vial, 0.9% full normal saline solution in July of this year. The FDA has categorized this recall as a Class I recall, which is the most severe kind of recall, reserved for cases in which use of a device could cause death or serious injuries. The recall affects lot 3B085 with distribution dates April 20, 2023 – July 14, 2023. 18,000 devices were recalled across the country. If you were harmed by units from the recalled lot, you should contact the seasoned Chicago-based attorneys of Moll Law Group. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved. We represent consumers across the country.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

Medline Industries’ recall is based on the Lot 3B085 vials being non-sterile. While the affected lot passed the sterility testing, Lot 3B087, which was within the same cleaning cycle failed testing and exposed the impacted lot to possible contamination. When saline is non-sterile, there may be severe adverse health repercussions including infection, wheezing, nausea, discomfort, and difficulty breathing, along with potentially fatal sepsis and death. However, consumers have not reported injuries or deaths connected to the issue.

The recalled vials are used in connection with irrigation and inhalation therapy. Sometimes it is paired with a non-ventilator nebulizes to cleanse the lungs and irrigate the trachea. When irrigation therapy is used, the saline solution helps to clean wounds and flush the area. With inhalation therapy, the solution returns moisture to the lunches and reduces cold and allergy-created congestion.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 5, 2023

Eight Bard Lawsuits Have been Centralized in the Western District of Missouri

By Moll Law Group

happens-770461_640-e1696440252665 Bard’s PowerPort devices are implanted under the skin and pump intravenous chemotherapy and other fluid into a patient’s bloodstream. These are two-part devices with an injection reservoir and a catheter. Recently, plaintiffs in eight lawsuits against Becton, Dickinson & Company, C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Access Systems made a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize litigation arising out of Bard’s Power Port devices in the Western District of Missouri. They allege that due to the catheters on the devices breaking, they suffered blood clots, infections, chest pain, and other life-threatening complications; many of them needed to undergo emergency surgeries to extract pieces of catheter. If you or a loved one suffered harm as a result of a Bard Power Port device, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based attorneys of Moll Law Group about your potential claim. Billions have been recovered in product liability lawsuits around the country with which we’ve been involved.

Contact Moll Law Group About Your Claim

The Panel determined that the lawsuits involved common questions of fact and that just and efficient litigation would be promoted by centralizing the case in the District of Arizona. They found that the common factual questions involve allegations that there is too great a concentration of barium sulfate used during the manufacturing of the catheter in the port devices.

This concentration, purportedly, reduces the catheter’s material integrity, which can in turn result in fracture or migration of the catheter, infection, and thrombosis. The multidistrict litigation will be looking at whether the design of the Bard port catheters requires too high a concentration of barium sulfate, as well as whether the defendant’s tested the devices sufficiently and whether they appropriately monitored and reported adverse events related to product failures.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 18, 2020

Illinois Residents with Certain Breast Implants May Be in Danger, According to FDA

By Moll Law Group

Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding

Photo Credit:
g0d4ather/Shutterstock.com

two breast implant manufacturers for their failure to comply with specific regulatory requirements. According to the official FDA press release, the FDA sent warning letters to Allergan and Ideal Implant Incorporated.

The Warning Letters

Under United States regulations, the manufacturers of silicone breast implants must conduct studies to ensure the continued safety of their products, even after the product has obtained FDA approval. According to the FDA, these post-approval studies are designed to “further evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the products and to answer additional scientific questions about the long-term safety and potential risks of breast implants that their premarket clinical trials were not designed to answer.”

Notably, the FDA requires this follow-up testing even if the manufacturer voluntarily recalls a product. These post-approval studies are crucial to evaluate the continued safety of recalled breast implants for those who already have had the devices implanted.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 8, 2017

Woman Awarded $20 Million in Pelvic Mesh Case

By Moll Law Group

Medical products and devices are often used in surgical procedures and other medical treatments. In some cases, these devices can save lives. However, sometimes these devices can be dangerous and may result in more serious injuries than the injuries they are used to treat.

Pelvic mesh, sometimes called vaginal mesh or surgical mesh, is a medical device that is used in procedures to support repairing weakened or damaged tissue. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned of complications associated with surgical mesh when placed in the vagina.

In some cases, the mesh can erode and cause patients pain, infection, bleeding, and other issues. Pelvic mesh implants became common a decade ago to treat urinary incontinence, or involuntary leakage of urine. Many women experience a condition in which the bladder and other organs, weakened by childbirth, sag over time, causing incontinence. In recent years, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer of pelvic mesh, by women alleging they were harmed by the implants.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 25, 2016

Medical Malpractice Claim Against Hospital Fails after Plaintiff Waits Too Long to Amend Complaint

By Moll Law Group

In a recent case, a woman had surgery done at a hospital and subsequently suffered a stroke. The woman filed a products liability claim against the manufacturer of one of the medical devices in the surgery. However, when the complaint was originally filed, it did not name the hospital or the doctor as defendants. It also did not state a claim for medical malpractice. Several months later, the woman requested to file an amended complaint to add the defendants and allege medical malpractice. She then filed the amended complaint almost four months after the original complaint.

The hospital and the doctor then moved for summary judgment, alleging that the filings were untimely. In the jurisdiction where the case arose, a medical malpractice action must be filed within two years of the cause of action accruing. The original complaint was filed just one day before the two-year statute of limitations had run. Thus, by the time the woman amended the complaint, the new claim against the defendants was not timely. The court granted the defendants’ motions because the claims were filed against them after the statute of limitations had expired. The state supreme court agreed, resulting in the dismissal of the claim.

Amending a Complaint and Its Effect on the Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is the time period during which a plaintiff can bring a certain kind of claim. The period of time varies depending on the type of claim and the jurisdiction, or the place in which it is filed. Often, the time begins to run from the date of the injury, the date that an injury was discovered, or the date that it should have been discovered.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 5, 2015

Medical Device Manufacturers Are Subject to Strict Liability in Illinois

By Moll Law Group

With advances in medical technology, many medical procedures that used to be daunting are now routine. Patients often arrive at a hospital or surgical center early in the morning and leave by mid-afternoon with few after-effects from the procedure or anesthesia. Many are able to even return to work the next day.

For doctors, medical procedures are an effective way of monitoring for certain conditions or diagnosing a new illness. Procedures are also lucrative medical treatments, and the more procedures a doctor squeezes in during a day, the more money the practice or hospital is reimbursed by insurance companies.

Companies that design and manufacture medical devices also stand to profit significantly from the widespread use of one of their devices. In some cases, the race to bring new products to the market results in great innovations, with patients benefiting from less invasive but equally effective procedures. In other cases, however, the drive for profits may cause a company to overlook faulty equipment and rush a product to market. Companies may also provide doctors with inadequate instructions on how to use or clean a device.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 14, 2015

Medical Device Manufacturer Recalls Hip Replacement Part

By Moll Law Group

A Tennessee-based medical device company has issued a recall for a prosthetic part used in hip joint replacement surgeries. According to one news source, the recall is a Class I recall. Class I recalls are issued when there is a reasonable probability that continued use of the device will cause serious health problems or even death.

The part is one of three prosthetic parts used in a total hip replacement surgery. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the part has been fracturing more than anticipated after surgical implantation. If a fracture occurs, patients may suffer from an array of symptoms, including pain, instability, and trouble walking. Fractures may also require emergency surgery to replace and repair the broken part. This is called revision surgery, which is often more complex and risky than original hip replacement surgery.

As a result of the recall, the company has informed product distributors, hospital personnel, and surgeons to cease selling and using the recalled part. The company has also recommended that patients immediately contact their doctor if they experience sudden pain, instability, difficulty walking, tingling, or a loss of feeling in the surgical leg. For patients not experiencing any of these symptoms, the company does not recommend following up with a medical professional at this time.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 7, 2015

Medical Device Likely Contributed to Surgery-Related Deaths

By Moll Law Group

According to news reports, eight patients who underwent heart bypass surgery at a Pennsylvania hospital most likely suffered bacterial infections because of a contaminated medical device used during the surgeries. The device is a heater-cooler unit used to control a patient’s blood pressure during open-heart surgery. Of the eight patients who were likely infected by the device, four died.

After a joint investigation with the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the hospital announced that the infections were probably the result of the contamination of tap water used in the device. According to the hospital, the devices were not being cleaned in full compliance with the manufacturer’s guidelines. To prevent further bacterial contamination, the manufacturer now recommends that the devices be filled with filtered water and hydrogen peroxide and cleaned with bleach.

Patients undergoing bypass surgeries are more susceptible to infection. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there have been 32 reports around the world of infection or contamination relating to the medical devices. Even so, the total number of infections resulting from the device is not exactly known, since symptoms do not always surface immediately after surgery.

Continue reading →