Olympus Scope Lawsuit

Between 2013 and 2024, contaminated Olympus duodenoscopes infected hundreds of patients at hospitals across the United States. At least 35 people died from these medical scopes.

What happened? These awful infections were caused by dangerous, drug-resistant bacteria that were extremely difficult to treat.

So you had patients who went to the hospital, often getting diagnostic or therapeutic procedures that they did not think would be a big deal, only to come out with infections that damaged organs, required months of intensive care, or, tragically, proved fatal.

This page explains the disaster of how this all went down, and our lawyers explain the legal options available to patients and families harmed by contaminated Olympus scopes.

If you have a potential claim, call our Olympus scope lawyers at 800-553-8082 or contact us online for a free consultation.

Olympus Scope Lawsuit Updates

Olympus scope litigation is still developing in 2026. The recent filings and FDA actions below matter because they involve the same basic questions at the center of these cases: whether reusable Olympus scopes could be reliably cleaned, whether Olympus gave adequate warnings, and whether later design changes actually solved the contamination problem.

September 25, 2026: New Olympus Product Liability Case Moves to Federal Court

A new Olympus product liability lawsuit was removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case, Nichols v. Olympus America, Inc., names Olympus America, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Olympus Medical Systems as defendants.

In this case, the patient underwent an ERCP in May 2025 using an Olympus TJF-Q190V duodenovideoscope. The procedure itself was uneventful, but later that evening she developed severe abdominal pain and was rushed to the emergency room. She was diagnosed with sepsis. Testing identified Klebsiella pneumoniae as the source of the infection. Within approximately 36 hours of the ERCP, her condition had deteriorated to septic shock and multi-system organ failure, requiring her to be airlifted to another hospital.

July 9, 2026: New Olympus Scope Infection Lawsuit Filed in Illinois

A woman filed a new product liability lawsuit against Olympus and several related entities in federal court in Illinois. The case involves allegations that an Olympus colonoscope caused a serious infection. Although this is not a duodenoscope case, it raises the same core allegation that a reusable scope was not safely reprocessed between patients.

June 6, 2026: FDA Posts New Class II Recall Involving the TJF-Q190V

The FDA posted a Class II recall involving the Olympus MAJ-2315 single-use distal cover used with the TJF-Q190V duodenoscope. Olympus issued the recall yesterday. The distal cover sits at the working end of the scope around the forceps elevator, the same area that has been central to years of cleaning and contamination concerns.

Current Status of Olympus Duodenoscope Litigation

Olympus duodenoscope cases are being filed in both federal and state courts across the United States. No formal multidistrict litigation consolidates all federal cases, and no class action lawsuit controls every victim’s claim. For many victims, that may be a good thing because serious injury and wrongful death cases often need individualized proof of infection timing, culture results, causation, and damages.

The litigation gained renewed momentum in 2025 following FDA import alerts involving Olympus products and the company’s later field safety actions addressing contamination concerns with newer duodenoscope models. These regulatory actions support what plaintiffs have argued for years: Olympus did not fully eliminate the design problem that allows bacteria to survive between patients.

The regulatory activity has continued. FDA records show a 2025 corrective action involving all TJF-Q190V serial numbers after post-market data raised concerns about microbial contamination when reprocessing was delayed. Another recall initiated in October 2025 cited continued reports of positive cultures and infections involving the TJF-Q190V. In 2026, Olympus also initiated a Class II recall involving the single-use distal cover used with the Q190V.

Cases filed in 2024 and 2025 are particularly significant because they involve newer-generation scopes that Olympus marketed as safer alternatives to the original TJF-Q180V. If plaintiffs can prove that even the updated designs remained defective, it undermines Olympus’s primary defense that the company identified and corrected the problem years ago.

Discovery in active cases will focus on internal company documents, communications between Olympus and the FDA, hospital infection reports, scope tracking records, engineering assessments of the elevator channel, and the decision making behind later design changes. Those documents will play a central role in upcoming trials and settlement negotiations.

What Is a Duodenoscope?

A duodenoscope is a flexible, lighted tube that physicians thread down a patient’s throat, through the stomach, and into the duodenum, the first section of the small intestine. From there, the scope allows access to the bile ducts, pancreatic duct, and surrounding anatomy. The procedure that uses it is called ERCP, which stands for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

ERCP is one of the most technically demanding procedures in gastroenterology. Our law firm has handled more than our share of medical malpractice lawsuits involving ERCP procedures. The procedure is used to diagnose and treat conditions involving the bile ducts and pancreas, including gallstones lodged in the common bile duct, strictures, tumors, and chronic pancreatitis.

ERCP is commonly performed, but it is not risk-free even when the procedure is done correctly. The issue in these scope infection cases is different: a patient can undergo an otherwise routine ERCP and then develop a serious infection because the device itself was contaminated.

This is why it was a big deal for Olympus to dominate the market for the scopes used in this procedure — it was very profitable. The scopes can cost around $18,000.

The Design Defect: Why These Scopes Cannot Be Reliably Cleaned

The duodenoscope differs from a standard endoscope because of its small mechanical component at its tip called the elevator mechanism. This elevator mechanism is at the root of these lawsuits.

How it works is that the elevator channel sits at the tip of the duodenoscope. This is the end that contacts the patient’s internal tissue, bile, pancreatic fluid, and blood. So there is no question the channel will be contaminated after use. If you were the first one to use the scope, no problem. The issue is whether the next patient who used that scope was safe or was it contaminated from prior patients. Because you cannot use an $18,000 scope just once. The hospital has to clean it and use it on the next patient.

How do you do that? You use brushes, detergents, and chemical disinfectants to reach every contaminated surface of the device. But the problem is that the elevator channel is not a smooth, open cavity. It contains tiny gaps between the elevator lever and its housing. It has seals, joints, and moving parts that can trap fluid and debris. So the channel’s geometry makes it impossible to be sure you have everything clean for the next patient. And if you do not, that is when you run the risk of bacteria and infection.

Bacteria that survive the cleaning process are tough nuts to crack. They do not just sit on the surface waiting to be wiped away or die out on their own. One of the dangerous things they do in these scopes is form biofilms. These are structured colonies of microorganisms that adhere to surfaces and secrete a protective matrix that makes them even tougher to kill and harder to get rid of. So the usual chemical disinfection does not fare well against these biofilms. The next patient who undergoes ERCP with that scope runs a real risk of being exposed to organisms from previous patients.

You now know the basis of the product liability lawsuits against Olympus. We allege that the device was engineered in a way that made reliable reprocessing impossible.

Why These Scopes Cannot Be Reliably Cleaned

The design defect at the heart of the lawsuits

The Elevator Channel

Tiny mechanical cavity at the tip of the scope
Contains crevices, seals, joints, and moving parts
Contacts bile, blood, pancreatic fluid, and tissue
Geometry can prevent brushes and disinfectants from reaching all surfaces

What Happens Next

Bacteria survive reprocessing
Biofilms form and resist disinfection
Contamination persists between patients
Drug-resistant organisms can spread into bile ducts and the bloodstream

Safer Alternative Designs Were Available

So when we argue design defect, we must show there was a better way. Olympus was not trapped by a single engineering design. In fact, by the time many later procedures were performed, fully disposable duodenoscopes were already on the market.

In 2019, the FDA cleared Boston Scientific’s EXALT Model D, the first fully disposable, single-use duodenoscope. Boston Scientific began a limited U.S. market release in early 2020. Unlike a conventional Olympus duodenoscope, the EXALT was intended to be discarded after one ERCP, eliminating the need to clean and disinfect the scope for another patient.

This blows away Olympus’ argument that infection risk is an unfortunate byproduct of a necessary reusable device. But Olympus knew it needed to compete with disposable duodenscopes, so it came up with that TJF-Q190V. Olympus promoted this as an improved design by adding a removable distal endcap. But this was at best a partial fix. The new device still had the same basic side-viewing configuration, elevator mechanism, and internal channels that made reliable cleaning and high-level disinfection difficult. A removable piece at the tip helps but does not eliminate the problem.

Olympus Scope Infection Lawsuits: CRE, VRE, and Other Drug-Resistant Infections

An Olympus scope infection lawsuit usually starts with the infection itself. The patient undergoes an ERCP or another endoscopic procedure and then develops a serious bacterial infection that is unusual, drug resistant, or difficult to explain. CRE and VRE are two of the organisms that have received the most attention, but these cases can also involve Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, E. coli, and other bacteria associated with health care transmission.

A CRE infection lawsuit can be especially serious because carbapenem-resistant organisms are difficult to treat and can cause sepsis, organ failure, prolonged hospitalization, and death. VRE presents the same basic problem: an infection that may be very hard to eradicate in a patient who was already sick enough to need an ERCP in the first place.

The legal question is not simply whether the patient became infected after a procedure. A strong duodenoscope infection lawsuit needs evidence connecting the procedure, the Olympus scope, the organism, and the timing of the infection. That is why culture results, scope tracking records, reprocessing logs, and infectious disease notes become so important. The same proof issues can arise in an Olympus endoscope lawsuit involving another reusable scope.

What Did Olympus Know, and When Did It Know It?

Beyond the design defect, the big question is: did Olympus know of the problem and do nothing to warn hospitals that the infection risk with these medical devices was unacceptable? There is still a lot of pretrial discovery needed in these case to know the whole picture but the evidence we already know is a problem for Olympus.

Internal documents, FDA communications, and preliminary litigation discovery have revealed that Olympus was aware of contamination risks associated with its duodenoscopes long before the major outbreaks became public.

2012: European Safety Signals

Reports from European hospitals indicated that Olympus duodenoscopes were linked to patient infections even when cleaned according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Plaintiffs allege Olympus received these reports and failed to take meaningful corrective action. So the first signs were there 14 years ago.

2013: The Virginia Mason Outbreak

After the Seattle outbreak, Virginia Mason notified Olympus directly. The hospital’s infection control team explained that the design of the elevator channel made adequate cleaning difficult. Olympus did not issue a broad recall, redesign the device, or warn all hospitals with the urgency the situation required.

2014 to 2015: Internal Acknowledgment

Documents produced in litigation suggest that Olympus engineers and executives understood the scope of the contamination problem but delayed more decisive action because of the financial and reputational costs of a recall or redesign.

2015: FDA Safety Communication

In February 2015, following the UCLA outbreak, the FDA issued a safety communication acknowledging that duodenoscopes posed infection risks even when properly reprocessed. The agency did not order a broad recall. Instead, it suggested that hospitals consider additional reprocessing measures.

2016: Olympus Updates Reprocessing Instructions

Olympus issued revised cleaning instructions that acknowledged the complexity of the elevator channel and recommended more aggressive reprocessing protocols. Plaintiffs argue the update effectively showed the original instructions were inadequate.

2022: FDA Warning Letter

In November 2022, the FDA issued a warning letter to Olympus subsidiary Aizu Olympus Co., Ltd., citing multiple violations of quality system regulations at a manufacturing facility in Japan. The violations included:

Failure to adequately validate product designs
Failure to document and test manufacturing processes
Failure to establish written procedures for reporting adverse events

2025: FDA Import Alerts

In June 2025, the FDA issued import alerts blocking certain Olympus medical devices manufactured at the Aizu facility and other Olympus facilities in Japan from entering the United States. The FDA cited ongoing concerns about unresolved quality-system violations.

So it is safe to say that Olympus knew about contamination risks for more than a decade. The company made incremental changes, but they were a butter knife in a gunfight. More needed to be done, and the older devices needed to be recalled.

The Problem Did Not End With the Q180V

For years, Olympus has framed the duodenoscope crisis as a problem tied to older devices, particularly the TJF-Q180V model linked to early CRE outbreaks. The company responded by introducing newer designs, including the TJF-Q190V, which included a removable distal endcap intended to improve cleaning.

That narrative is now being challenged by Olympus scope lawsuits around the country.

Plaintiffs allege the Q190V did not solve the core problem. This medical scope still relied on the same basic design features that made earlier duodenoscopes difficult to clean, including the side viewing configuration, the elevator mechanism, and internal channels that can trap biological material. The removable endcap was presented as a solution. Plaintiffs argue that, at best, it was a partial fix.

Regulatory history supports that skepticism. Olympus issued corrective actions involving the Q190V and its distal cover, and in July 2023 the company initiated a Class II recall of the TJF-Q190V after reports of patient infections and positive cultures. FDA records also show additional Q190V-related corrective actions and recalls in 2025 and 2026.

That is the key point. This is not just a story about what happened in Seattle in 2013 or Los Angeles in 2015. Plaintiffs now allege that contamination risks persisted into the next generation of Olympus scopes, even after the company had years of data, warnings, and real world outbreaks.

If plaintiffs prove that, it undercuts one of Olympus’s central defenses: that the problem was identified, addressed, and fixed. The newer cases tell a different story.

The FDA’s Role: Regulatory Failure

Olympus bears primary responsibility for the harm caused by its defective devices. But the FDA’s performance was uninspiring to say the least.

The agency knew about the risks of duodenoscope contamination as early as 2013. Between 2013 and 2015, the FDA received hundreds of adverse event reports involving duodenoscope-related infections. The agency did not act aggressively. It did not order a broad recall. It did not require immediate design changes. It issued safety communications that shifted much of the burden onto hospitals while continuing to allow the devices to be sold.

Part of the problem is structural. Duodenoscopes entered the market through the FDA’s 510(k) clearance pathway, which allows medical devices to be sold without clinical trials if they are substantially equivalent to devices already on the market. The 510(k) process is faster and cheaper than premarket approval, but it does not require the kind of independent clinical proof many patients assume exists.

When safety problems emerged, the FDA had tools available. It could issue warning letters. It could press the company. It could refer cases to the Department of Justice for potential criminal prosecution. What it did not do quickly and decisively was remove the devices from the market or require an immediate engineering solution.

The result was years of preventable infections while the FDA and Olympus engaged in a slow regulatory process.

One of the more troubling features of the Olympus story is that the company’s regulatory problems did not end after the early duodenoscope scandals became public. Even after years of outbreak reports, lawsuits, FDA communications, and public scrutiny, Olympus continued to face safety and quality control problems with other endoscopic devices and related components.

That cuts against the argument that Olympus learned its lesson and cleaned up its act. Plaintiffs can argue that Olympus did not merely mishandle one product line years ago. They can argue that the company continued to show the same core problems with device safety, reprocessing, post-market surveillance, and regulatory compliance long after the duodenoscope crisis should have forced reform.

A jury may view repeated recalls, warning letters, import alerts, and manufacturing problems not as isolated events, but as evidence of a company that kept reacting late, warning late, and fixing problems only after patients had already been harmed.

The Scope of the Problem

The Olympus duodenoscope story is not about a niche device used in rare procedures. It is about a dominant manufacturer, a high volume procedure, and a contamination problem that persisted for years.

70%+: Olympus has reported more than 70% share across key gastrointestinal endoscope categories, including duodenoscopes.
500K+: ERCP procedures are performed annually in the United States.
50%: CRE bloodstream infections can kill up to half of affected patients.
13 years: Roughly the period from Olympus infection reports in Europe in 2012 to the 2025 FDA import alerts.
35+: Patients in U.S. hospitals reported to have died after developing infections tied to Olympus duodenoscopes since 2013.
2023: Year Olympus initiated a Class II recall of the TJF-Q190V after reports of patient infections and positive cultures.

Olympus dominated this market while hundreds of thousands of ERCP procedures were performed every year. Plaintiffs allege the company knew its scopes were unusually difficult to clean, yet patients continued to be exposed to contamination risks from devices used deep inside the bile ducts and pancreas.

Why Infection Timing and Culture Results Are a Big Deal

The strongest Olympus duodenoscope cases usually have a clear medical timeline. A patient undergoes ERCP or another scope procedure, develops fever, sepsis, bacteremia, abscess, cholangitis, or another serious infection within days or weeks, and hospital cultures identify a drug-resistant organism such as CRE, VRE, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, or another pathogen associated with health care transmission.

That timing matters because Olympus will almost always dispute causation. The defense may argue that the infection came from the patient’s underlying illness, the hospital environment, another procedure, another device, or an unrelated source. Plaintiffs need records that connect the procedure, the scope, the organism, and the infection timeline.

Important evidence includes the ERCP report, scope tracking logs, culture and sensitivity results, infectious disease notes, antibiotic records, ICU records, hospital infection control records, sepsis records, blood cultures, biliary cultures, device reprocessing records, and any notice from the hospital that other patients may have been exposed to the same contaminated device.

Records that can help prove an Olympus scope infection claim
Evidence	Why It Matters	How It Helps Plaintiffs
ERCP report	Shows the procedure date, indication, physician, and if the Olympus scope was used.	Anchors the infection timeline.
Scope tracking logs	May identify the exact Olympus scope and serial number.	Can connect multiple infected patients to the same device.
Culture results	Identify the organism and antibiotic resistance pattern.	Helps prove the infection was serious and potentially linked to device contamination.
Infectious disease notes	Explain suspected source, treatment course, and organism behavior.	Can support causation and damages.
Hospital infection control records	May reveal outbreak investigations, device quarantine, or patient notices.	Can show the hospital or manufacturer knew the scope posed a contamination risk.

Crux of Olympus Lawsuit Claims

Patients and families harmed by contaminated Olympus duodenoscopes have filed lawsuits in federal and state courts across the country. The claims generally fall into three categories.

1. Design Defect

The core allegation is that Olympus duodenoscopes were defectively designed because their elevator mechanism could not be adequately cleaned using available reprocessing methods. A properly designed reusable device should allow for reliable cleaning and high-level disinfection between patients. Plaintiffs allege the Olympus scopes did not.

Design defect claims do not always require proof that the manufacturer acted negligently. Depending on the governing state law, plaintiffs may need to show that the device was unreasonably dangerous as designed and that a feasible safer alternative design existed.

2. Failure to Warn

Olympus knew or should have known that its duodenoscopes posed contamination risks that persisted even when hospitals followed the company’s own reprocessing instructions. The company had a duty to warn physicians, hospitals, and patients of these risks. Plaintiffs allege it failed to do so adequately.

Failure to warn claims are often among the most powerful in medical device litigation because they focus on what the manufacturer knew and when. Internal documents showing that Olympus understood the contamination problem but delayed warnings are central to these claims.

3. Manufacturing Defect

Some claims allege that specific Olympus devices were defectively manufactured, deviating from the company’s design specifications in ways that increased their likelihood of harboring bacteria. The FDA’s findings regarding the Aizu facility support allegations that manufacturing quality control was inadequate.

Who Can File an Olympus Duodenoscope Lawsuit?

If you or a family member underwent an ERCP or another procedure involving an Olympus duodenoscope and subsequently developed a serious infection, you may have a claim. The key questions are:

Was an Olympus duodenoscope used during the procedure? Again, patients do not know the specific device used and lawyers do not expect you to know when you call. Hospital records should document the specific device used.
Did you develop an infection within 90 days of the procedure? The most common pattern involves infections that appear within days or weeks after ERCP. Infections requiring hospitalization, IV antibiotics, ICU admission, or surgery are most likely to support a claim.
Was the infection caused by a drug-resistant organism? Infections involving CRE, VRE, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, or other resistant bacteria are strongly associated with duodenoscope contamination. Culture results identify which organism.
Did the infection cause significant harm? Our lawyers are looking for serious injury cases, not mild infections that went away fairly quickly. Our clients are families of patients who died and patients who suffered prolonged hospitalization and severe complications.
Is the statute of limitations still open? Each state has different deadlines and different rules. The clock generally begins when the patient knew or reasonably should have known that the device caused the injury. But when it comes to the statute of limitations, do not assume anything. Call a lawyer immediately.

What Compensation Can Victims Recover?

Patients harmed by contaminated Olympus duodenoscopes can seek compensation for:

Medical expenses: hospital stays, surgeries, medications, rehabilitation, and ongoing care
Lost wages and earning capacity: income lost during illness and any permanent reduction in the ability to work
Pain and suffering: physical pain, emotional distress, and diminished quality of life caused by the infection and treatment
Wrongful death damages: funeral expenses, loss of financial support, loss of companionship, and the suffering the patient endured before death

In cases involving particularly egregious corporate conduct, juries may also award punitive damages where the governing state law permits them, and the evidence satisfies the applicable legal standard. Evidence that Olympus knew about contamination risks and delayed action could be relevant to punitive damages in appropriate cases.

Why These Cases Matter

Olympus is not facing lawsuits simply because medicine carries risk. Plaintiffs allege the company sold reusable scopes that could not always be reliably cleaned, received years of infection warnings, and still left hospitals and patients exposed. If discovery proves that, these cases are about whether a manufacturer knew its device presented a preventable contamination danger and acted too slowly to fix it or warn the people at risk.

Olympus Duodenoscope Settlements and Verdicts

Because most Olympus duodenoscope cases have settled under strict confidentiality agreements, publicly available information about settlement amounts is limited. Olympus has been careful to keep financial terms private, likely to avoid establishing benchmarks that could encourage additional claims or increase settlement demands in pending cases.

Regulatory Penalties

In 2018, Olympus Medical Systems Corporation pleaded guilty to failing to file required adverse event reports involving infections connected to duodenoscopes and to continuing to distribute the devices despite those reporting failures. The company was fined $80 million and ordered to pay $5 million in criminal forfeiture. For plaintiffs, that enforcement history matters because it supports the argument that Olympus had repeated regulatory failures, not isolated mistakes.

Separately, in 2016, Olympus paid approximately $646 million to resolve criminal and civil charges related to an illegal kickback scheme involving its medical devices. Does this speak directly to the facts of this case? No. Does it tie into our theory of the case that Olympus put profits ahead of patient safety? Of course.

Confidential Individual Settlements

Court filings and legal disclosures indicate that Olympus has settled individual cases involving patients who contracted CRE or other drug resistant infections after ERCP procedures. Settlement amounts remain confidential.

What Drives Settlement Value

Severity of injury: Death, permanent organ failure, prolonged disability, or ICU hospitalization generally increase settlement value.
Age of the victim: Younger patients who lost decades of earning capacity or life expectancy typically have higher damages.
Strength of causation: Cases where records clearly document the Olympus scope used, timing of infection, and bacterial strain involved are stronger.
Defendant conduct: Evidence that Olympus knew about contamination risks and delayed warnings can increase punitive damages risk.
Jurisdiction: Some states cap damages or have more plaintiff-friendly juries, which sometimes affects settlement negotiations but matters less if there is a global settlement.
Quality of legal representation: These are complex medical device cases, and experienced counsel can make a meaningful difference.

The lack of publicly reported verdicts means we do not yet have jury-determined benchmarks for these cases or even a guess at per person settlement amounts. That will change as we get through pretrial discovery, and it will really change if active cases proceed to trial and result in significant plaintiff verdicts.

Frequently Asked Questions About Olympus Duodenoscope Lawsuits

What Olympus devices are involved in this litigation?

The main devices at issue are Olympus duodenoscopes used during ERCP procedures, especially the TJF-Q180V and related models. Newer claims also involve the TJF-Q190V and other later-generation models. Some claims have also involved other reusable Olympus scopes, including bronchoscopes, laparoscopes, and ureterorenoscopes, as regulators and investigators have examined broader manufacturing and quality control problems. The core issue is always the same: the inability to properly clean these medical scopes.

How do I know if an Olympus scope was used during my procedure?

It is rare for anyone to know which scope was used. If you had an ERCP or another endoscopic procedure, your medical records should identify the specific scope that was used. The hospital will have records showing the manufacturer, model, and sometimes the serial number for infection control tracking. If your records are vague or incomplete, our lawyers may still be able to get more details from the hospital’s medical records department, risk management office, or infection control department.

Has Olympus recalled its duodenoscopes?

Olympus has not issued a sweeping recall of all of its duodenoscopes. Instead, the company has issued narrower recalls and corrections involving certain models, accessories, and reprocessing instructions. Our concern is that these narrower actions did not fully address the core design problem. In June 2025, the FDA also imposed import alerts on certain Olympus medical devices manufactured in Japan because of unresolved quality-system concerns.

What is the statute of limitations for filing an Olympus lawsuit?

The deadline depends on your state, and that can make a major difference. In many states, the time limit does not necessarily start on the date of your procedure. Instead, the clock may begin when you knew or reasonably should have known that a contaminated scope or defective device may have caused your injury. That is called the discovery rule. If you were never told about the risk of contamination, or only later learned that your infection may have been connected to the device used during your procedure, that timing could matter.

How long do these cases take to resolve?

Medical device cases take time, particularly cases like this where all of the pretrial discovery is new. A ton of work goes into these cases — medical records, developing experts, figuring out what Olympus knew, etc. Will there ultimately be a global settlement of these cases? Time will tell.

Do I have to go to court?

It is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely. Few medical device lawsuits go to trial. What usually happens is a few cases go to trial, which helps everyone better understand the settlement value of the cases, and then this becomes a global or near-global settlement. We suspect that will happen here.

Contact Us About an Olympus Duodenoscope Claim

If you or a family member developed a serious infection after an ERCP or other procedure involving an Olympus duodenoscope, you may have a claim. Our attorneys handle complex medical device litigation and can evaluate your case at no cost.

Call us at 800-553-8082 or contact us online for a free consultation. We want to hear your story. There is no fee or cost unless we recover compensation for you.

On This Page