1612 K St NW Suite 1101, Washington, DC 20006
New FDA safety alerts targeting Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm sparked a surge in duodenoscope infection litigation in 2025–2026. A California consolidated action is in active discovery, hospitals are being named as co-defendants, and the JPML is considering MDL formation. Cornerstone Law is reviewing cases nationwide — with no upfront cost to you.
Named Defendants
Lawsuits name the three major duodenoscope manufacturers whose devices have been the subject of FDA safety alerts and recalls. In an expansion of the litigation, several hospitals are now also being named as co-defendants for failing to follow manufacturer and FDA reprocessing protocols.
Key Case and Discovery Orders
A consolidated action in California is in active discovery under a 2025 case management order, and the JPML is weighing whether to centralize rising federal filings into a formal MDL.
In re: Duodenoscope Infection Litigation
Case No. 2:25-cv-00911 — Central District of California
2025 case management order requires production of design-change documents, internal contamination-rate data, communications with the FDA, and field-correction and recall records. Discovery is active and ongoing.
JPML Centralization Under Consideration
Proposed MDL — venue TBD
Rising case volume has prompted the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consider creating a new MDL. MDL formation would coordinate discovery nationwide and is widely anticipated as filings continue to grow.
How Patients Were Harmed
Plaintiffs describe a chain of failures involving manufacturers, regulators, and hospitals that left patients unknowingly exposed to dangerous drug-resistant bacteria during routine medical procedures.
Duodenoscopes have complex elevator mechanisms with crevices that trap organic material and can't be fully cleaned, a design flaw plaintiffs allege manufacturers knew about for years.
The device's architecture allegedly made complete sterilization unachievable even when following manufacturer instructions, creating a persistent contamination risk across patients.
Plaintiffs allege manufacturers had internal data on contamination rates and infection outbreaks but failed to disclose this to hospitals, physicians, or the FDA in a timely manner.
Several hospitals are named as co-defendants for allegedly failing to follow FDA-required reprocessing protocols, letting contaminated scopes be used on subsequent patients.
The result: outbreaks of CRE and ESBL-producing bacteria, among the most dangerous drug-resistant organisms, in patients who underwent procedures they trusted to be safe.
Despite accumulating evidence of infection risk, manufacturers allegedly delayed issuing adequate warnings and field corrections, prolonging patient exposure to known contamination hazards.
Eligibility
You may qualify if you underwent an endoscopy or ERCP procedure and subsequently developed a serious infection or related complication. Both patients with a confirmed drug-resistant diagnosis and those hospitalized for an unexplained post-procedure infection may be eligible.
Legal Theories and Damages
Common Questions
These three manufacturers make up the vast majority of duodenoscopes in use, but if you're unsure which device was used in your procedure, your medical records will typically identify it. Reach out and we can help confirm.
We handle endoscopy infection cases on contingency — no upfront fee, and we only get paid if we recover compensation for you.
Not formally yet. Cases are coordinating through a California case management order while the JPML considers whether to centralize filings nationwide into a formal MDL.
Yes. Surviving family members may be able to bring a wrongful death claim on the decedent's behalf. We can walk you through what that looks like in your state.
We represent patients harmed by contaminated endoscopes and duodenoscopes. Find out whether your infection and procedure history qualify for a claim.
Get a Free Case ReviewNo fee unless we recover compensation for you. Call 1-800-928-9445.