Olympus Scope (Endoscope/Duodenoscope) Lawsuit

A routine hospital procedure should never leave a patient fighting for their life. Yet thousands of people who underwent a common procedure known as an Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, or ERCP, later developed dangerous bacterial infections.

These patients claim they became infected after certain Olympus duodenoscopes were used that allegedly could not be completely cleaned and disinfected between patients. They had never heard the word “duodenoscope” before they became sick.

They simply remember undergoing what they believed would be a routine procedure, only to develop a severe infection days later that required prolonged hospitalization, additional surgeries, or intensive antibiotic treatment. Sadly, some patients died after contracting highly drug-resistant bacteria, commonly known as superbugs.

Lawsuits filed against Olympus allege that the company knew its duodenoscopes contained a design flaw that made complete sterilization extremely difficult—even when hospitals carefully followed cleaning instructions. Plaintiffs contend Olympus continued marketing these devices without adequately warning hospitals, physicians, regulators, or patients about the risks.

If you or someone you love developed a serious bacterial infection after undergoing an ERCP procedure, the dangerous medical device lawyers at Hach & Rose, LLP can review your medical history and explain whether you may have legal options.

Could Your Infection Be Connected to an Olympus Scope?

You may have a potential legal claim if:

• You underwent an ERCP procedure at a hospital or surgical center.
• You became seriously ill with a bacterial infection shortly afterward.
• You were diagnosed with CRE, E. coli, or another drug-resistant infection.
• You required hospitalization, additional medical treatment, or surgery because of the infection.
• A loved one passed away after developing a severe infection following an ERCP procedure.

Call Hach & Rose, LLP at (212) 779-0057 for a free, confidential consultation. We’ll review your case and explain whether you may qualify to pursue compensation.

Why Choose Hach & Rose, LLP For an Olympus Scope Lawsuit?

When a medical procedure causes unexpected harm, patients and families deserve answers. Cases involving contaminated medical devices often require a thorough understanding of hospital records, FDA safety communications, product design issues, and the medical evidence linking a device to a patient’s injuries.

For more than 25 years, Hach & Rose, LLP has represented individuals and families in complex injury and product liability litigation. During that time, our firm has recovered more than $1 billion through settlements and verdicts while taking on manufacturers, insurance companies, and other powerful corporate defendants.

We understand that many people who contact us are only now learning that the infection they suffered may have been linked to a contaminated medical device rather than an unavoidable complication of treatment. Our attorneys carefully evaluate medical records, procedure reports, product identification, and FDA safety information to determine whether an Olympus duodenoscope may have contributed to a client’s injuries.

From there, we advocate for our clients through every stage of the legal process, including settlement negotiations and, when necessary, litigation against the companies alleged to be responsible.

Consultations are always free, and because we handle Olympus Scope cases on a contingency fee basis, you pay no attorney’s fees unless we recover compensation for you.

What Our Clients Say About Us

Read More Reviews

What Is an Olympus Duodenoscope?

A duodenoscope is a specialized flexible endoscope used during a procedure called endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Unlike a standard endoscope that simply allows physicians to examine the digestive tract, a duodenoscope includes a small movable mechanism—known as an elevator mechanism—that enables doctors to guide instruments into the bile and pancreatic ducts to perform treatments, such as:

• Remove gallstones.
• Treat blocked bile ducts.
• Diagnose pancreatic disorders.
• Place stents.
• Collect tissue samples.
• Treat certain complications affecting the pancreas or liver.

For most patients, an ERCP is a necessary procedure that can relieve pain, restore normal bile flow, and prevent life-threatening complications. For many years, Olympus manufactured some of the most commonly used duodenoscopes in hospitals throughout the United States.

The lawsuits involving Olympus do not claim that ERCP itself is inherently dangerous. Instead, plaintiffs allege that a defect in certain Olympus duodenoscopes allowed harmful bacteria to remain inside the device despite repeated cleaning and disinfection.

Why Are People Claiming Certain Olympus Duodenoscopes Are Difficult to Clean?

Unlike many reusable medical instruments, Olympus duodenoscopes contain a complex elevator mechanism with extremely small moving parts, tiny channels, and narrow crevices. According to the lawsuits, these areas could trap bacteria that survived even meticulous cleaning and high-level disinfection.

Hospitals generally follow the manufacturer’s cleaning instructions. The legal allegation is that the device itself could not be reliably disinfected because of its design, allowing dangerous bacteria to remain inside the scope before it was used on another patient.

As a result, a procedure on an infected patient could unknowingly expose the next patient to life-threatening bacteria. Plaintiffs allege Olympus knew about this risk for years but failed to adequately redesign the devices or provide sufficient warnings before widespread outbreaks occurred.

How a Contaminated Duodenoscope Could Spread Infection

The lawsuits allege the following sequence of events occurred in hospitals across the country:

Patients had no way of knowing whether the scope used during their procedure had been fully disinfected. Many people who became ill believed they had simply experienced an unfortunate complication until hospitals and public health officials began investigating clusters of nearly identical infections.

The allegations in the Olympus litigation focus on a simple but devastating claim: patients trusted that reusable medical equipment could be safely sterilized, but the design of certain duodenoscopes allegedly made that impossible under normal clinical conditions.

What Are CRE and Other “Superbug” Infections?

Many of the lawsuits involving Olympus duodenoscopes involve infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE)—a group of bacteria resistant to many of the antibiotics doctors typically rely on to treat serious infections. Because they are so difficult to eliminate, CRE infections are often referred to as “superbug” infections.

Patients exposed to contaminated duodenoscopes have also developed other dangerous bacterial infections, including drug-resistant strains of E. coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and related organisms.

These infections can become life-threatening, particularly for individuals who are already hospitalized or undergoing treatment for pancreatic or biliary disorders.

Infection symptoms may include:

• High fever and chills.
• Severe abdominal pain.
• Nausea and vomiting.
• Bloodstream infections (sepsis).
• Difficulty breathing.
• Low blood pressure.
• Organ failure in severe cases.

Many patients required intensive care, multiple surgeries, prolonged courses of intravenous antibiotics, or lengthy hospital stays. Tragically, some patients do not survive their infections.

FDA Warnings and Department of Justice Action

As reports of infections increased across the country, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began investigating the safety of reusable duodenoscopes.

Over several years, the FDA issued multiple safety communications warning healthcare providers that existing cleaning and disinfection procedures might not eliminate bacteria from certain Olympus duodenoscopes. The agency ultimately required manufacturers to improve reprocessing instructions and redesign portions of the devices to reduce the risk of patient-to-patient transmission.

Federal investigators also examined Olympus’s handling of these safety concerns. In 2020, Olympus entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and agreed to pay more than $85 million to resolve allegations involving its marketing and distribution of certain medical devices, including issues related to duodenoscopes.

While the Deferred Prosecution Agreement did not determine civil liability in individual lawsuits, it represents one of several significant governmental actions taken in response to concerns surrounding Olympus’s medical devices.

For many patients, these government investigations reinforced concerns that the infections they suffered may not have been isolated incidents but part of a much broader problem affecting hospitals nationwide.

Hospital Outbreaks Raised National Attention

Public awareness of contaminated duodenoscopes increased dramatically after several hospitals reported outbreaks involving drug-resistant infections. Among the most widely reported incidents were outbreaks at:

• Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where multiple patients developed serious CRE infections following ERCP procedures, and several patients died.
• Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, where investigators linked additional infections to contaminated duodenoscopes.
• Other hospitals across the United States, which later reported similar outbreaks involving reusable Olympus scopes.

These outbreaks highlighted a troubling reality: hospitals that carefully followed manufacturer-recommended cleaning procedures could still experience bacterial transmission because the alleged problem lay in the device’s design rather than in simple failures in sterilization practices.

For many families, these reports answered a question that had lingered for years: How could a routine medical procedure have resulted in such a devastating infection?

What Compensation May Be Available in an Olympus Scope Claim?

A serious hospital-acquired infection can impact nearly every aspect of a person’s life. Beyond the immediate medical emergency, many patients continue to experience lasting physical, emotional, and financial consequences.

Depending on the facts of a case, legal compensation may be available for:

• Medical expenses related to hospitalization and treatment.
• Additional surgeries and follow-up procedures.
• Long-term rehabilitation or nursing care.
• Lost income and reduced earning capacity.
• Pain and suffering.
• Emotional distress.
• Wrongful death damages for surviving family members, where permitted by law.

The amount of compensation available depends on numerous factors, including the severity of the infection, the patient’s long-term prognosis, and the impact the illness has had on the individual and their family.

Questions to Ask Your Healthcare Provider

Many people are unsure whether an Olympus duodenoscope was used during their procedure or whether their infection could have been connected to an ERCP. If you believe you may have been infected from this procedure, consider asking your healthcare provider for additional information.

Helpful questions may include:

• Did I undergo an ERCP procedure?
• Was an Olympus duodenoscope used during my procedure?
• What type of bacterial infection was I diagnosed with?
• Was my infection reported as a healthcare-associated outbreak?
• Can I obtain copies of my hospital records and procedure reports?
• Were patients at this hospital ever notified of possible duodenoscope-related infections?

The answers to these questions may help clarify what occurred and provide valuable information if you decide to have our attorneys evaluate your potential claim. We can also ask these questions and gather additional medical information on your behalf.

Can You File an Olympus Scope Lawsuit?

Unlike many newer mass torts, the Olympus duodenoscope litigation has been pending for several years. Many lawsuits have already been settled or otherwise resolved. That does not necessarily mean every potential claim has expired.

Whether you may still have legal options depends on several factors, including:

• When your ERCP procedure was performed.
• When your infection was diagnosed.
• When you first learned that your illness might be connected to an Olympus duodenoscope.
• The filing deadlines and laws that apply in your state.

Because every situation is unique, the best way to determine whether you may have a viable claim is to speak with an attorney who can review your medical records and explain the applicable deadlines. At Hach & Rose, LLP, we offer free consultations and can help you understand whether pursuing a claim is possible.

Frequently Asked Questions About Olympus Scope Cases

Speak With the Dangerous Medical Device Team at Hach & Rose, LLP About a Potential Olympus Scope Lawsuit

If you or someone you love developed a serious bacterial infection after undergoing an ERCP procedure, you deserve answers. What should have been a routine medical procedure may have resulted in months of additional treatment, lasting health complications, or the tragic loss of a family member.

At Hach & Rose, LLP, we understand the devastating impact these infections can have on patients and their families. We are committed to investigating whether an Olympus duodenoscope may have contributed to your illness and to explaining your legal options with honesty, compassion, and respect.

Contact us today at (212) 779-0057 for a free, confidential consultation. We will review your medical history, answer your questions, and determine whether you may have a viable claim. You pay no attorney’s fees unless we recover compensation for you.

Get a free consultation