If you or a loved one suffered injuries, property damage, or other financial losses due to another party’s actions, you may be entitled to compensation for those losses.
Contact the experienced Chicago personal injury lawyers from TorHoerman Law for a free, no-obligation Chicago personal injury lawsuit case consultation today.
If you or a loved one suffered a personal injury or financial loss due to a car accident in Chicago, IL – you may be entitled to compensation for those damages.
Contact an experienced Chicago auto accident lawyer from TorHoerman Law today to see how our firm can serve you!
If you or a loved one have suffered injuries, property damage, or other financial losses due to a truck accident in Chicago, IL – you may qualify to take legal action to gain compensation for those injuries and losses.
Contact TorHoerman Law today for a free, no-obligation consultation with our Chicago truck accident lawyers!
If you or a loved one suffered an injury in a motorcycle accident in Chicago or the greater Chicagoland area – you may be eligible to file a Chicago motorcycle accident lawsuit.
Contact an experienced Chicago motorcycle accident lawyer at TorHoerman Law today to find out how we can help.
If you have been involved in a bicycle accident in Chicago at no fault of your own and you suffered injuries as a result, you may qualify to file a Chicago bike accident lawsuit.
Contact a Chicago bike accident lawyer from TorHoerman Law to discuss your legal options today!
Chicago is one of the nation’s largest construction centers.
Thousands of men and women work on sites across the city and metropolitan area on tasks ranging from skilled trades to administrative operations.
Unfortunately, construction site accidents are fairly common.
Contact TorHoerman Law to discuss your legal options with an experienced Chicago construction accident lawyer, free of charge and no obligation required.
Nursing homes and nursing facilities should provide a safe, supportive environment for senior citizens, with qualified staff, nurses, and aids administering quality care.
Unfortunately, nursing home abuse and neglect can occur, leaving residents at risk and vulnerable.
Contact an experienced Chicago nursing home abuse lawyer from TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation to discuss your legal options.
If you are a resident of Chicago, or the greater Chicagoland area, and you have a loved one who suffered a fatal injury due to another party’s negligence or malpractice – you may qualify to file a wrongful death lawsuit on your loved one’s behalf.
Contact a Chicago wrongful death lawyer from TorHoerman Law to discuss your legal options today!
If you have suffered a slip and fall injury in Chicago you may be eligible for compensation through legal action.
Contact a Chicago slip and fall lawyer at TorHoerman Law today!
TorHoerman Law offers free, no-obligation case consultations for all potential clients.
When a child is injured at a daycare center, parents are left wondering who can be held liable, who to contact for legal help, and how a lawsuit may pan out for them.
If your child has suffered an injury at a daycare facility, you may be eligible to file a daycare injury lawsuit.
Contact a Chicago daycare injury lawyer from TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation to discuss your case and potential legal action!
If you or a loved one suffered injuries, property damage, or other financial losses due to another party’s actions, you may be entitled to compensation for those losses.
Contact the experienced Edwardsville personal injury lawyers from TorHoerman Law for a free, no-obligation Edwardsville personal injury lawsuit case consultation today.
If you or a loved one suffered a personal injury or financial loss due to a car accident in Edwardsville, IL – you may be entitled to compensation for those damages.
Contact an experienced Edwardsville car accident lawyer from TorHoerman Law today to see how our firm can serve you!
If you or a loved one have suffered injuries, property damage, or other financial losses due to a truck accident in Edwardsville, IL – you may qualify to take legal action to gain compensation for those injuries and losses.
Contact TorHoerman Law today for a free, no-obligation consultation with our Edwardsville truck accident lawyers!
If you or a loved one suffered an injury in a motorcycle accident in Edwardsville – you may be eligible to file an Edwardsville motorcycle accident lawsuit.
Contact an experienced Edwardsville motorcycle accident lawyer at TorHoerman Law today to find out how we can help.
If you have been involved in a bicycle accident in Edwardsville at no fault of your own and you suffered injuries as a result, you may qualify to file an Edwardsville bike accident lawsuit.
Contact an Edwardsville bicycle accident lawyer from TorHoerman Law to discuss your legal options today!
Nursing homes and nursing facilities should provide a safe, supportive environment for senior citizens, with qualified staff, nurses, and aids administering quality care.
Unfortunately, nursing home abuse and neglect can occur, leaving residents at risk and vulnerable.
Contact an experienced Edwardsville nursing home abuse attorney from TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation to discuss your legal options.
If you are a resident of Edwardsville and you have a loved one who suffered a fatal injury due to another party’s negligence or malpractice – you may qualify to file a wrongful death lawsuit on your loved one’s behalf.
Contact an Edwardsville wrongful death lawyer from TorHoerman Law to discuss your legal options today!
If you have suffered a slip and fall injury in Edwardsville you may be eligible for compensation through legal action.
Contact an Edwardsville slip and fall lawyer at TorHoerman Law today!
TorHoerman Law offers free, no-obligation case consultations for all potential clients.
When a child is injured at a daycare center, parents are left wondering who can be held liable, who to contact for legal help, and how a lawsuit may pan out for them.
If your child has suffered an injury at a daycare facility, you may be eligible to file a daycare injury lawsuit.
Contact an Edwardsville daycare injury lawyer from TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation to discuss your case and potential legal action!
If you or a loved one suffered injuries on someone else’s property in Edwardsville IL, you may be entitled to financial compensation.
If property owners fail to keep their premises safe, and their negligence leads to injuries, property damages or other losses as a result of an accident or incident, a premises liability lawsuit may be possible.
Contact an Edwardsville premises liability lawyer from TorHoerman Law today for a free, no-obligation case consultation.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries, property damage, or other financial losses due to another party’s actions, you may be entitled to compensation for those losses.
Contact the experienced St. Louis personal injury lawyers from TorHoerman Law for a free, no-obligation St. Louis personal injury lawsuit case consultation today.
If you or a loved one suffered a personal injury or financial loss due to a car accident in St. Louis, IL – you may be entitled to compensation for those damages.
Contact an experienced St. Louis car accident lawyer from TorHoerman Law today to see how our firm can serve you!
If you or a loved one have suffered injuries, property damage, or other financial losses due to a truck accident in St. Louis, IL – you may qualify to take legal action to gain compensation for those injuries and losses.
Contact TorHoerman Law today for a free, no-obligation consultation with our St. Louis truck accident lawyers!
If you or a loved one suffered an injury in a motorcycle accident in St. Louis or the greater St. Louis area – you may be eligible to file a St. Louis motorcycle accident lawsuit.
Contact an experienced St. Louis motorcycle accident lawyer at TorHoerman Law today to find out how we can help.
If you have been involved in a bicycle accident in St. Louis at no fault of your own and you suffered injuries as a result, you may qualify to file a St. Louis bike accident lawsuit.
Contact a St. Louis bicycle accident lawyer from TorHoerman Law to discuss your legal options today!
St. Louis is one of the nation’s largest construction centers.
Thousands of men and women work on sites across the city and metropolitan area on tasks ranging from skilled trades to administrative operations.
Unfortunately, construction site accidents are fairly common.
Contact TorHoerman Law to discuss your legal options with an experienced St. Louis construction accident lawyer, free of charge and no obligation required.
Nursing homes and nursing facilities should provide a safe, supportive environment for senior citizens, with qualified staff, nurses, and aids administering quality care.
Unfortunately, nursing home abuse and neglect can occur, leaving residents at risk and vulnerable.
Contact an experienced St. Louis nursing home abuse attorney from TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation to discuss your legal options.
If you are a resident of St. Louis, or the greater St. Louis area, and you have a loved one who suffered a fatal injury due to another party’s negligence or malpractice – you may qualify to file a wrongful death lawsuit on your loved one’s behalf.
Contact a St. Louis wrongful death lawyer from TorHoerman Law to discuss your legal options today!
If you have suffered a slip and fall injury in St. Louis you may be eligible for compensation through legal action.
Contact a St. Louis slip and fall lawyer at TorHoerman Law today!
TorHoerman Law offers free, no-obligation case consultations for all potential clients.
When a child is injured at a daycare center, parents are left wondering who can be held liable, who to contact for legal help, and how a lawsuit may pan out for them.
If your child has suffered an injury at a daycare facility, you may be eligible to file a daycare injury lawsuit.
Contact a St. Louis daycare injury lawyer from TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation to discuss your case and potential legal action!
Depo-Provera, a contraceptive injection, has been linked to an increased risk of developing brain tumors (including glioblastoma and meningioma).
Women who have used Depo-Provera and subsequently been diagnosed with brain tumors are filing lawsuits against Pfizer (the manufacturer), alleging that the company failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with the drug.
Despite the claims, Pfizer maintains that Depo-Provera is safe and effective, citing FDA approval and arguing that the scientific evidence does not support a causal link between the drug and brain tumors.
You may be eligible to file a Depo Provera Lawsuit if you used Depo-Provera and were diagnosed with a brain tumor.
Suboxone, a medication often used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD), has become a vital tool which offers a safer and more controlled approach to managing opioid addiction.
Despite its widespread use, Suboxone has been linked to severe tooth decay and dental injuries.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuits claim that the companies failed to warn about the risks of tooth decay and other dental injuries associated with Suboxone sublingual films.
Tepezza, approved by the FDA in 2020, is used to treat Thyroid Eye Disease (TED), but some patients have reported hearing issues after its use.
The Tepezza lawsuit claims that Horizon Therapeutics failed to warn patients about the potential risks and side effects of the drug, leading to hearing loss and other problems, such as tinnitus.
You may be eligible to file a Tepezza Lawsuit if you or a loved one took Tepezza and subsequently suffered permanent hearing loss or tinnitus.
Elmiron, a drug prescribed for interstitial cystitis, has been linked to serious eye damage and vision problems in scientific studies.
Thousands of Elmiron Lawsuits have been filed against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer, alleging that the company failed to warn patients about the potential risks.
You may be eligible to file an Elmiron Lawsuit if you or a loved one took Elmiron and subsequently suffered vision loss, blindness, or any other eye injury linked to the prescription drug.
The chemotherapy drug Taxotere, commonly used for breast cancer treatment, has been linked to severe eye injuries, permanent vision loss, and permanent hair loss.
Taxotere Lawsuits are being filed by breast cancer patients and others who have taken the chemotherapy drug and subsequently developed vision problems.
If you or a loved one used Taxotere and subsequently developed vision damage or other related medical problems, you may be eligible to file a Taxotere Lawsuit and seek financial compensation.
Parents and guardians are filing lawsuits against major video game companies (including Epic Games, Activision Blizzard, and Microsoft), alleging that they intentionally designed their games to be addictive — leading to severe mental and physical health issues in minors.
The lawsuits claim that these companies used psychological tactics and manipulative game designs to keep players engaged for extended periods — causing problems such as anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal.
You may be eligible to file a Video Game Addiction Lawsuit if your child has been diagnosed with gaming addiction or has experienced negative effects from excessive gaming.
Thousands of Uber sexual assault claims have been filed by passengers who suffered violence during rides arranged through the platform.
The ongoing Uber sexual assault litigation spans both federal law and California state court, with a consolidated Uber MDL (multi-district litigation) currently pending in the Northern District of California.
Uber sexual assault survivors across the country are coming forward to hold the company accountable for negligence in hiring, screening, and supervising drivers.
If you or a loved one were sexually assaulted, sexually battered, or faced any other form of sexual misconduct from an Uber driver, you may be eligible to file an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit.
Although pressure cookers were designed to be safe and easy to use, a number of these devices have been found to have a defect that can lead to excessive buildup of internal pressure.
The excessive pressure may result in an explosion that puts users at risk of serious injuries such as burns, lacerations, an even electrocution.
If your pressure cooker exploded and caused substantial burn injuries or other serious injuries, you may be eligible to file a Pressure Cooker Lawsuit and secure financial compensation for your injuries and damages.
Several studies have found a correlation between heavy social media use and mental health challenges, especially among younger users.
Social media harm lawsuits claim that social media companies are responsible for onsetting or heightening mental health problems, eating disorders, mood disorders, and other negative experiences of teens and children
You may be eligible to file a Social Media Mental Health Lawsuit if you are the parents of a teen, or teens, who attribute their use of social media platforms to their mental health problems.
The Paragard IUD, a non-hormonal birth control device, has been linked to serious complications, including device breakage during removal.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Paragard, alleging that the company failed to warn about the potential risks.
If you or a loved one used a Paragard IUD and subsequently suffered complications and/or injuries, you may qualify for a Paragard Lawsuit.
Patients with the PowerPort devices may possibly be at a higher risk of serious complications or injury due to a catheter failure, according to lawsuits filed against the manufacturers of the Bard PowerPort Device.
If you or a loved one have been injured by a Bard PowerPort Device, you may be eligible to file a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit and seek financial compensation.
Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products for injuries, pain and suffering, and financial costs related to complications and injuries of these medical devices.
Over 100,000 Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of women injured by vaginal mesh and pelvic mesh products.
If you or a loved one have suffered serious complications or injuries from vaginal mesh, you may be eligible to file a Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit.
Above ground pool accidents have led to lawsuits against manufacturers due to defective restraining belts that pose serious safety risks to children.
These belts, designed to provide structural stability, can inadvertently act as footholds, allowing children to climb into the pool unsupervised, increasing the risk of drownings and injuries.
Parents and guardians are filing lawsuits against pool manufacturers, alleging that the defective design has caused severe injuries and deaths.
If your child was injured or drowned in an above ground pool accident involving a defective restraining belt, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit.
Recent scientific studies have found that the use of chemical hair straightening products, hair relaxers, and other hair products present an increased risk of uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, breast cancer, and other health problems.
Legal action is being taken against manufacturers and producers of these hair products for their failure to properly warn consumers of potential health risks.
You may be eligible to file a Hair Straightener Cancer Lawsuit if you or a loved one used chemical hair straighteners, hair relaxers, or other similar hair products, and subsequently were diagnosed with:
NEC Lawsuit claims allege that certain formulas given to infants in NICU settings increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) – a severe intestinal condition in premature infants.
Parents and guardians are filing NEC Lawsuits against baby formula manufacturers, alleging that the formulas contain harmful ingredients leading to NEC.
Despite the claims, Abbott and Mead Johnson deny the allegations, arguing that their products are thoroughly researched and dismissing the scientific evidence linking their formulas to NEC, while the FDA issued a warning to Abbott regarding safety concerns of a formula product.
You may be eligible to file a Toxic Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit if your child received baby bovine-based (cow’s milk) baby formula in the maternity ward or NICU of a hospital and was subsequently diagnosed with Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC).
Paraquat, a widely-used herbicide, has been linked to Parkinson’s disease, leading to numerous Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits against its manufacturers for failing to warn about the risks of chronic exposure.
Due to its toxicity, the EPA has restricted the use of Paraquat and it is currently banned in over 30 countries.
You may be eligible to file a Paraquat Lawsuit if you or a loved one were exposed to Paraquat and subsequently diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease or other related health conditions.
Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer primarily caused by exposure to asbestos.
Asbestos trust funds were established in the 1970s to compensate workers harmed by asbestos-containing products.
These funds are designed to pay out claims to those who developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases due to exposure.
Those exposed to asbestos and diagnosed with mesothelioma may be eligible to file a Mesothelioma Lawsuit.
AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) is a firefighting foam that has been linked to various health issues, including cancer, due to its PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) content.
Numerous AFFF Lawsuits have been filed against AFFF manufacturers, alleging that they knew about the health risks but failed to warn the public.
AFFF Firefighting Foam lawsuits aim to hold manufacturers accountable for putting peoples’ health at risk.
You may be eligible to file an AFFF Lawsuit if you or a loved one was exposed to firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer.
PFAS contamination lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers and suppliers of PFAS chemicals, alleging that these substances have contaminated water sources and products, leading to severe health issues.
Plaintiffs claim that prolonged exposure to PFAS through contaminated drinking water and products has caused cancers, thyroid disease, and other health problems.
The lawsuits target companies like 3M, DuPont, and Chemours, accusing them of knowingly contaminating the environment with PFAS and failing to warn about the risks.
If you or a loved one has been exposed to PFAS-contaminated water or products and has developed health issues, you may be eligible to file a PFAS lawsuit.
The Roundup Lawsuit claims that Monsanto’s popular weed killer, Roundup, causes cancer.
Numerous studies have linked the main ingredient, glyphosate, to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Leukemia, and other Lymphatic cancers.
Despite this, Monsanto continues to deny these claims.
Victims of Roundup exposure who developed cancer are filing Roundup Lawsuits against Monsanto, seeking compensation for medical expenses, pain, and suffering.
Our firm is about people. That is our motto and that will always be our reality.
We do our best to get to know our clients, understand their situations, and get them the compensation they deserve.
At TorHoerman Law, we believe that if we continue to focus on the people that we represent, and continue to be true to the people that we are – justice will always be served.
Without our team, we would’nt be able to provide our clients with anything close to the level of service they receive when they work with us.
The TorHoerman Law Team commits to the sincere belief that those injured by the misconduct of others, especially large corporate profit mongers, deserve justice for their injuries.
Our team is what has made TorHoerman Law a very special place since 2009.
Olympus Scope lawsuit claims center on allegations that certain reusable Olympus endoscopes and related accessories exposed patients to dangerous bacterial contamination after medical procedures.
These infections can lead to hospitalization, IV antibiotic treatment, sepsis, organ failure, and death, leaving many patients with serious medical complications and lasting physical harm.
TorHoerman Law is investigating the Olympus Scope lawsuit and reviewing claims from individuals, and family members of individuals, who were harmed after exposure to a contaminated Olympus scope or related device.
Certain reusable medical devices made by Olympus Medical Systems Corporation may have exposed patients to serious infection risks after endoscopic procedures.
Several lawsuits focus on Olympus duodenoscopes, which were used in ERCP procedures and later drew national scrutiny over contamination concerns.
Lawsuits claim that some contaminated Olympus Scopes could retain biological material even after reprocessing, creating a risk that bacteria could pass from one patient to another.
The danger became more serious because these devices contain intricate components and internal spaces that may remain difficult to fully disinfect under ordinary hospital conditions.
Public reports and regulatory actions raised concerns that potentially deadly infections occur when reusable scopes are not adequately reprocessed before another procedure.
Plaintiffs often argue that, even when staff followed proper cleaning protocols, the design or reprocessing demands of certain devices still left patients exposed to dangerous bacteria.
Patients who developed severe infections, sepsis, prolonged hospitalization, or other complications after a scope procedure may have grounds to investigate a legal claim.
An Olympus scope lawsuit may allow eligible patients and families to pursue compensation for medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering, and other losses tied to the infection.
You may qualify to file an Olympus scope lawsuit if you underwent an ERCP or another endoscopic procedure involving Olympus equipment and later developed a serious bacterial infection.
Families who lost a loved one after infection-related complications linked to an Olympus scope procedure may also be able to pursue a wrongful death claim.
Contact TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation.
Use the chat feature on this page to find out if you’re eligible to file an Olympus scope lawsuit.
March 27th 2026: Olympus Scope Infection Lawsuits Grow Amid New Research on Persistent Endoscope Contamination
New research is adding to growing concerns about infection risks associated with reusable Olympus scopes and other gastrointestinal endoscopes used in colonoscopy and ERCP procedures.
Studies now suggest that nearly 1 in 5 reprocessed endoscopes may still carry harmful bacteria even after hospitals follow manufacturer cleaning and disinfection instructions.
Researchers reviewing contamination data found that colonoscopy scopes showed the highest contamination rates, with bacteria detected in nearly one-third of devices tested.
Upper endoscopy scopes also showed significant contamination levels, while duodenoscopes used in ERCP procedures continued to raise concerns over persistent bacterial transmission and “superbug” outbreaks.
The findings are particularly concerning because reusable endoscopes contain narrow internal channels and complex components that may be difficult to fully disinfect.
Prior FDA investigations into Olympus duodenoscopes have already linked contaminated devices to outbreaks involving carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), E. coli, bloodstream infections, sepsis, and other serious complications.
Some outbreaks occurred even when healthcare facilities reported following approved reprocessing procedures.
As a result, attorneys nationwide continue investigating Olympus scope infection lawsuits on behalf of patients who developed severe infections after colonoscopy, ERCP, bronchoscopy, and related procedures.
Lawsuits are expected to allege that certain reusable endoscopes were defectively designed, allowing bacteria to remain trapped inside the devices and creating ongoing risks of cross-contamination between patients.
Researchers and regulators continue to push for improved sterilization protocols, enhanced surveillance testing, and broader adoption of disposable or redesigned scopes to reduce infection risks associated with reusable endoscopic devices.
A new analysis of the FDA’s MAUDE database is raising additional concerns about the safety and reliability of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) devices, including Olympus scope systems frequently used in gastrointestinal procedures.
Researchers reviewed more than 7,600 adverse event reports tied to EUS devices between 2000 and 2025, identifying thousands of device failures and patient complications.
The study found that peeling or delaminating scope components, device breakage, microbial contamination, and inadequate cleaning were among the most commonly reported device problems.
Investigators also documented hundreds of contamination reports involving bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and coagulase-negative staphylococci, organisms that can survive inside damaged or difficult-to-clean endoscopes.
Researchers noted that reports involving EUS devices increased sharply between 2020 and 2023, with Olympus devices accounting for the majority of reports in the database.
The authors warned that structural damage and contamination issues may contribute to infection risks even when standard cleaning protocols are followed, echoing concerns raised in prior Olympus duodenoscope litigation and FDA safety alerts.
Federal regulators are warning healthcare providers about serious risks associated with certain Olympus endoscope guide sheath kits after reports that device tips detached from the kits during procedures.
In a recall announcement issued earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said certain single-use Olympus guide sheath kits may separate during insertion or when excessive force is applied.
The detached components can remain inside a patient’s airway or lungs, potentially causing internal bleeding, additional procedures, or other serious complications.
According to the FDA, at least 26 injuries have been linked to the issue so far, though no deaths have been reported.
The recall affects Olympus Single Use Guide Sheath Kits with model numbers K-201, K-202, K-203, and K-204, including sheath models SG-200C and SG-201C.
Olympus instructed customers to immediately stop using the affected products and remove them from circulation.
The company first issued an urgent medical device removal notice to healthcare providers in January.
The recall adds to mounting scrutiny surrounding Olympus’s endoscope safety and contamination concerns.
In December 2024, the FDA issued a separate safety alert regarding Olympus MAJ-891 endoscope forceps and irrigation plug components following reports of infections, sepsis, urinary tract infections, and one death allegedly linked to inadequate cleaning and disinfection procedures.
Olympus has also faced prior regulatory criticism over contamination risks associated with reusable duodenoscopes.
In 2023, the FDA issued a warning letter citing unresolved quality-control problems with Olympus duodenoscopes, specialized scopes used in gastrointestinal procedures.
Regulators previously reported that nearly 7% of reusable duodenoscopes tested positive for high-risk bacteria even after reprocessing, contributing to a broader industry push toward disposable endoscope systems.
The latest recall is expected to further intensify concerns about reusable endoscope safety, device durability, and infection risks associated with gastrointestinal and pulmonary procedures.
A newly published study is raising fresh concerns about whether current duodenoscope testing methods can reliably detect dangerous contamination linked to reusable endoscopes, including Olympus scopes used during ERCP procedures.
Researchers analyzed more than seven years of duodenoscope surveillance data from a major hospital in the Netherlands, reviewing 556 duodenoscope cultures and more than 5,200 ERCP procedures.
The study found that up to 23.7% of procedures may have involved contaminated duodenoscopes carrying microorganisms of gut or oral origin.
Investigators also found that current culture testing methods may miss contamination at concerning rates.
According to the study, the sensitivity of duodenoscope cultures may be as low as 82.2%, meaning contaminated scopes could potentially test negative and be cleared for continued patient use.
The researchers identified repeated contamination involving genetically related bacteria across multiple scopes, including clusters of Pseudomonas aeruginosa contamination that persisted over long periods.
Some contaminated duodenoscopes continued to be used on patients between testing intervals because hospitals generally rely on a single negative culture result before returning devices to service.
The study warned that biofilm buildup inside reusable endoscope channels may shield bacteria from detection during cleaning and sampling, potentially contributing to false-negative test results and prolonged contamination.
Researchers concluded that the current practice of relying on a single negative culture to clear quarantined duodenoscopes for reuse “should be re-evaluated,” adding to ongoing concerns about Olympus scope infections, endoscope reprocessing failures, and the risk of undetected bacterial transmission associated with reusable duodenoscopes.
A newly published study is raising fresh concerns about the ability of hospitals to detect dangerous endoscope contamination, after researchers identified a prolonged “silent” transmission of Pseudomonas aeruginosa linked to contaminated duodenoscopes at a French hospital.
According to the study, eight patients developed infections or colonization after undergoing ERCP procedures with a contaminated duodenoscope between 2021 and 2022, despite the device repeatedly passing routine microbiological testing earlier in the outbreak.
Researchers later discovered persistent contamination in two separate duodenoscopes, with whole genome sequencing confirming that all patient infections were part of the same clonal bacterial cluster.
The authors warned that the outbreak went undetected for months, even though the hospital followed standard cleaning and reprocessing procedures.
Researchers also noted that some patients developed infections outside the biliary tract, suggesting transmission routes that are often overlooked in investigations.
The study concluded that current testing and reprocessing methods may fail to detect ongoing contamination in reusable duodenoscopes, particularly when the bacteria involved are not multidrug-resistant.
Researchers called for enhanced surveillance strategies, improved endoscope designs, and broader post-procedure monitoring to help prevent future infections tied to contaminated scopes.
Olympus has issued a new global corrective action involving certain bronchoscopes used during airway procedures, following additional reports of endobronchial combustion linked to the devices.
The updated safety communication expands on a prior 2023 warning that was issued after reports of severe patient injuries and one death.
According to Olympus, investigations conducted after the original corrective action revealed the need for additional instructions involving the use of bronchoscopes with laser therapy, argon plasma coagulation, and high-frequency cauterization equipment.
Since 2023, the company says it has received four additional reports of serious injuries, including one in the United States.
The company now recommends several additional precautions during procedures, including maintaining more than 4 centimeters of separation between the endoscope and endotracheal tube, keeping oxygen concentrations below 40%, limiting energy output to less than 40 watts, avoiding prolonged energy application at a single location, and using suction to evacuate smoke.
Olympus warned that failure to follow the updated instructions could result in combustion inside the airway, potentially causing severe burns to the lungs or airways, prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, surgical intervention, or death.
The company also noted that device components damaged during combustion could break apart and remain inside the patient.
The latest corrective action adds to the ongoing scrutiny surrounding Olympus endoscopes and bronchoscopes, which have been linked to prior recalls, outbreaks of infections, contamination concerns, and multiple FDA warning letters regarding quality control and patient safety issues.
A new October 2025 commentary continues concerns about deadly infections linked to contaminated endoscopes and duodenoscopes, arguing that hospitals are still failing to detect many outbreaks until patients are seriously harmed.
The article points to the case of California patient Aaron Young, who developed a severe antibiotic-resistant infection after undergoing a routine procedure involving a contaminated duodenoscope.
His case was part of the broader wave of endoscope-related outbreaks that led to a 2016 Senate investigation, which found that more than 250 drug-resistant infections and multiple deaths were linked to contaminated scopes used in hospitals nationwide.
According to the commentary, many hospitals still rely on outdated infection-detection methods that treat cases as isolated incidents rather than identifying broader transmission patterns.
Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) say they have implemented a genomic surveillance system known as EDS-HAT, which analyzes bacterial DNA in real time to identify potential outbreaks before they spread.
The researchers report that the system has already helped detect and stop multiple hospital outbreaks, including endoscope-related infections that may otherwise have gone unnoticed.
The article argues that broader adoption of genomic surveillance could help hospitals identify contaminated devices more quickly, reduce healthcare-associated infections, and prevent future outbreaks linked to reusable endoscopes and other medical equipment.
The update adds to continuing scrutiny surrounding duodenoscope safety, sterilization practices, and whether current high-level disinfection protocols are sufficient to prevent the spread of dangerous multidrug-resistant bacteria in healthcare settings.
Olympus has issued an urgent field corrective action for its TJF-Q190V duodenoscope, warning healthcare providers about updated reprocessing and inspection procedures in response to ongoing concerns about infection risks associated with the device.
According to the October 14, 2025, customer notice, Olympus identified changes to its cleaning and reprocessing instructions after continued assessments involving positive cultures and infection reports linked to the duodenoscope systems.
The company acknowledged that improper or incomplete reprocessing could expose patients to contaminated devices, potentially resulting in serious or life-threatening infections.
Olympus stated that from 2024 to the present, it received reports of two deaths and five serious injuries potentially associated with infections or contamination linked to duodenoscopes, although the company said there was insufficient information to definitively determine causation.
As part of the corrective action, Olympus updated its reprocessing training materials, added enhanced visual inspection guidance, and now recommends using 10x magnification tools to inspect the distal ends of the scopes for damage or irregularities before use.
The company is also requiring facilities to complete updated training modules and review revised operating and reprocessing manuals.
The notice adds to years of ongoing scrutiny involving Olympus duodenoscopes and broader concerns about whether current endoscope cleaning and high-level disinfection protocols are sufficient to prevent contamination and dangerous patient infections.
Olympus has issued another major medical device recall involving its endoscope products, this time affecting certain ViziShot 2 FLEX endoscopic needles after reports that device components could detach during procedures and enter a patient’s airway.
According to a recent FDA safety notice, the recall involves Olympus ViziShot 2 FLEX (19G) EBUS-TBNA needles manufactured before May 12, 2025.
The specialized needles are commonly used during endoscopic procedures to collect tissue samples from the lungs and surrounding airways, often to help diagnose cancer or other abnormalities.
Federal regulators warn that if the device sheath becomes damaged during use, internal components such as the hypotube and plastic pieces may separate and eject into the patient’s airway.
The FDA indicates Olympus has already received multiple adverse event reports linked to the issue, including several injuries and at least one patient death.
Olympus has since updated its manufacturing process, replacing prior visual inspections with an automated inspection system intended to better identify defects during assembly.
The company has also instructed healthcare providers to quarantine and return affected devices immediately.
The recall adds to growing scrutiny surrounding Olympus endoscope products and device safety concerns over the last several years.
Earlier this year, Olympus recalled certain single-use endoscope guide sheath kits after detached tips allegedly caused dozens of patient injuries. In 2024, Olympus also faced warnings tied to bacterial contamination involving endoscope components linked to more than 120 injuries and one reported death.
Federal regulators have repeatedly raised concerns about Olympus quality control practices in recent years.
In 2023, the FDA issued warning letters regarding unresolved duodenoscope contamination issues and failures involving bronchoscope equipment that had reportedly caught fire during procedures.
The latest recall is expected to add to ongoing concerns surrounding reusable and specialized endoscope systems, particularly as hospitals and regulators continue debating whether current cleaning, inspection, and sterilization protocols are sufficient to prevent device-related injuries and infections.
A new multisociety guidance document published in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology aims to clarify longstanding questions about endoscope sterilization, high-level disinfection (HLD), and infection prevention practices for reusable medical devices.
The guidance was developed by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) in collaboration with several major healthcare organizations, including the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (SGNA), and The Joint Commission.
The recommendations follow the CDC’s 2024 update to its disinfection and sterilization guidelines and address issues ranging from manufacturer instructions for use (IFUs) to storage, drying, microbial surveillance, and alternatives to HLD.
One of the document’s most closely watched sections concerns duodenoscope reprocessing.
Following carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae outbreaks linked to contaminated duodenoscopes in the mid-2010s, many hospitals adopted enhanced cleaning measures such as double high-level disinfection or sterilization.
However, the new guidance concluded that current evidence does not support requiring double HLD or mandatory sterilization for duodenoscopes when standard reprocessing is properly performed.
Instead, the panel stated that healthcare facilities may evaluate transitioning toward sterilization or consider alternatives such as sterile single-use duodenoscopes.
The guidance emphasized that consistent adherence to manual cleaning, inspection, and standard HLD protocols remains the most important factor in reducing contamination risk.
The recommendations also acknowledge several unresolved issues.
The panel declined to issue formal recommendations on routine microbial culturing, maximum storage times for processed scopes, or the effectiveness of specialized drying cabinets due to limited evidence.
Additional knowledge gaps identified in the appendix include questions about borescopes, lubricating agents, the use of simethicone, and optimal retraining practices for staff responsible for endoscope reprocessing.
Not all experts agreed with the document’s conclusions.
Medical device safety researcher Lawrence Muscarella, PhD, raised concerns about the guidance’s handling of rinse water contamination and its decision not to recommend routine water-quality testing.
Muscarella noted that waterborne organisms, such as Pseudomonas, have previously been linked to true patient infections involving contaminated endoscopes, despite guidance suggesting that some rinse-water contamination events were not clinically significant.
The publication comes as hospitals, regulators, and manufacturers continue facing scrutiny over reusable endoscope contamination risks and the effectiveness of current cleaning protocols.
A recent study published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is raising additional concerns about contamination risks tied to reusable duodenoscopes, finding that patients may still be exposed to dangerous bacteria even when hospitals follow microbiological surveillance protocols.
Researchers at Erasmus MC in the Netherlands analyzed more than seven years of duodenoscope surveillance data involving Olympus and Pentax scopes used during ERCP procedures.
The study found that contamination persisted despite routine culturing and reprocessing measures, with investigators estimating that between 12.3% and 23.7% of ERCP procedures may have involved contaminated duodenoscopes.
The paper also questioned the reliability of current surveillance testing methods. Researchers reported that duodenoscope culture sensitivity may be as low as 82.2%, meaning contaminated devices could incorrectly test negative and be returned to clinical use.
In several instances, false-negative cultures allegedly allowed scopes contaminated with microorganisms to remain in circulation and continue to be used on patients.
Investigators identified repeated contamination involving microorganisms of gut or oral origin, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and yeast species.
The study noted that contaminated scopes were sometimes used dozens or even hundreds of times before contamination patterns were fully recognized.
The findings add to growing scrutiny surrounding reusable duodenoscope systems and the effectiveness of current cleaning protocols.
Separate recent research published in the American Journal of Infection Control similarly reported that high-level disinfection frequently failed to eliminate microorganisms from patient-ready endoscopes, including multidrug-resistant organisms and fungi.
As concerns over reusable scope contamination persist, hospitals and manufacturers have increasingly explored disposable or partially disposable duodenoscope designs to reduce the risk of infection transmission.
A separate 2025 study found growing adoption of single-use duodenoscopes at a major U.S. medical center, where physicians reported improved performance with newer disposable models over time.
A newly published review in the American Journal of Infection Control is renewing concerns over infection risks linked to reusable Olympus duodenoscopes and other flexible endoscopes, warning that high-level disinfection (HLD) may not reliably eliminate dangerous bacteria in real-world healthcare settings.
The June 2025 review examined studies, FDA reports, and outbreak investigations published between 2019 and 2024, concluding that contamination of patient-ready endoscopes remains a widespread problem despite adherence to current cleaning standards.
Researchers found that many endoscopes continued to harbor multidrug-resistant organisms, fungi, and other potentially dangerous pathogens even after undergoing high-level disinfection procedures.
According to the review, dozens of outbreaks linked to contaminated endoscopes have been reported in recent years, including infections involving drug-resistant bacteria such as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and multidrug-resistant E. coli.
Several outbreaks were tied to Olympus scopes and accessories, with some cases resulting in sepsis and death.
The article also highlights FDA findings that many hospitals and clinics failed to fully follow manufacturers’ cleaning instructions, with investigators documenting repeated breaches involving delayed cleaning, improper drying, skipped leak testing, and contaminated storage conditions.
In some cases, patients were notified of potential exposure after hundreds or even thousands of procedures had been performed using improperly reprocessed scopes.
Researchers noted that Olympus duodenoscope surveillance studies have previously found high-concern organisms in approximately 5% of sampled devices, despite the scopes being processed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
The review warns that the complex design of reusable scopes may make complete disinfection difficult, even when healthcare facilities attempt to comply with current protocols.
The publication adds to growing scrutiny surrounding Olympus scope infection lawsuits, which continue to allege that reusable endoscope systems were defectively designed and carried unreasonable contamination risks.
Federal regulators have increasingly encouraged healthcare providers to transition toward sterilization methods and disposable scope technologies in an effort to reduce patient exposure to dangerous infections.
A recent June 2025 article by infection prevention expert Karen Butler is drawing renewed attention to long-running concerns about Olympus duodenoscopes and other reusable endoscopes, questioning whether high-level disinfection alone is sufficient to protect patients from dangerous infections.
The report revisits the nationwide outbreaks linked to contaminated duodenoscopes over the past decade, including the 2015 superbug outbreaks involving carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), which were tied to improperly reprocessed endoscopes and linked to approximately 250 infections and 25 deaths.
Federal regulators later acknowledged that Olympus duodenoscopes and similar devices could remain contaminated even when hospitals followed manufacturer cleaning instructions correctly.
According to Butler’s review, FDA postmarket surveillance studies found that up to 5.4% of reprocessed duodenoscope samples tested positive for high-concern organisms such as E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, despite undergoing high-level disinfection procedures.
The article notes that repeated rounds of disinfection did not significantly reduce contamination rates, adding to concerns that the complex design of reusable scopes may make complete sterilization difficult.
The update also highlights a growing shift toward sterilization and disposable scope technologies.
Since 2020, the FDA has repeatedly encouraged healthcare providers to transition toward duodenoscopes with innovative or disposable designs and to consider terminal sterilization methods instead of traditional high-level disinfection whenever feasible.
Those concerns have expanded beyond duodenoscopes.
In 2024, the FDA issued additional safety communications regarding contamination risks involving reprocessed bronchoscopes and urological endoscopes, warning that multidrug-resistant bacteria may still survive standard cleaning procedures.
The renewed focus on scope contamination comes as Olympus continues to face scrutiny over endoscope-related infection risks and recalls.
In recent months, federal regulators announced recalls involving Olympus guide sheath kits after reports that components detached inside patients, while prior FDA alerts linked Olympus endoscope accessories to more than 120 patient injuries and at least one death tied to contamination concerns.
As hospitals increasingly move toward disposable devices and enhanced sterilization protocols, plaintiffs in Olympus scope infection lawsuits continue to argue that manufacturers failed to adequately address known contamination risks associated with reusable endoscope systems.
A new study is adding to the growing discussion over how hospitals can reduce the infection risks historically linked to reusable duodenoscopes during ERCP procedures.
Researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine reported a 94% technical success rate for single-use duodenoscopes across 267 procedures performed between 2020 and 2023 at a high-volume tertiary care center.
The study found that use of disposable scopes gradually increased over the three-year period, rising from 2.6% of ERCP procedures in 2020 to 4.7% in 2023.
Researchers noted that the devices were most commonly used in patients considered at higher risk of infection complications, including immunocompromised individuals and those at risk of harboring drug-resistant organisms.
Investigators reported that technical failures requiring a switch to reusable duodenoscopes occurred in about 6% of cases, with the most common issues involving poor visualization and maneuverability.
However, the study found that newer versions of the disposable scopes showed improvements in image stability, scope stiffness, and elevator functionality over time.
The findings come as Olympus and other endoscope manufacturers continue to face scrutiny and litigation over contamination risks associated with reusable duodenoscopes.
Federal regulators and researchers have increasingly focused on whether single-use devices may help reduce the transmission of dangerous bacteria linked to prior outbreaks and patient infections.
The findings come as Olympus and other endoscope manufacturers continue to face scrutiny and litigation over contamination risks associated with reusable duodenoscopes.
Federal regulators and researchers have increasingly focused on whether single-use devices may help reduce the transmission of dangerous bacteria that has been linked to prior outbreaks and patient infections.
A newly published medical review is adding to growing concerns surrounding Olympus scope infection lawsuits and other endoscope-related litigation, finding that high-level disinfection procedures frequently fail to eliminate dangerous bacteria and contamination risks from reusable medical scopes.
The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control in April 2025.
Researchers reviewed infection reports, FDA adverse event data, hospital inspections, and outbreak investigations from 2019 through 2024 involving reusable endoscopes, including Olympus duodenoscopes, bronchoscopes, cystoscopes, and gastrointestinal scopes.
According to the paper, dozens of outbreaks tied to contaminated endoscopes were reported in recent years, including infections involving multidrug-resistant organisms and bacteria linked to sepsis and patient deaths.
The review found that high-level disinfection, commonly referred to as HLD, often failed to reliably eliminate microbial contamination in real-world clinical settings.
Researchers cited studies showing contamination remained on 6% to 72% of patient-ready endoscopes after reprocessing, with some devices testing positive for dangerous pathogens, including Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, fungi, and drug-resistant bacteria.
The paper also highlighted repeated FDA findings involving Olympus devices, including reports of hospitals skipping required cleaning steps, failing leak tests, improperly drying scopes, and continuing to use damaged equipment.
In several outbreak investigations, facilities were forced to notify hundreds or even thousands of patients about potential exposure to contaminated scopes.
Researchers concluded that current endoscope processing methods may be insufficient to fully protect patients, calling for broader adoption of sterilization rather than high-level disinfection alone.
The authors warned that reusable endoscopes continue to pose serious infection risks, particularly when they come into contact with sterile tissue or the bloodstream during procedures.
A new study published in the Journal of Hospital Infection is adding to ongoing concerns about infection risks tied to reusable endoscopes and duodenoscopes.
Researchers investigated an outbreak of drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae linked to contaminated gastrointestinal endoscopes at a German hospital, where 32 patients were affected, and six died.
According to the study, investigators found that contaminated endoscopes continued testing positive for dangerous bacteria even after undergoing standard cleaning and disinfection procedures.
Researchers identified residual moisture, scratches inside device channels, and biofilm buildup that may have allowed bacteria to survive reprocessing.
The outbreak strain was recovered from multiple patients and from reprocessed endoscopes themselves, supporting concerns that reusable scopes can transmit infections between patients despite compliance with manufacturer instructions.
The findings echo longstanding allegations raised in Olympus duodenoscope lawsuits and other endoscope litigation, where patients claim device designs made the scopes difficult to fully clean and disinfect.
Federal regulators and researchers have spent years investigating contamination risks tied to reusable duodenoscopes used during ERCP procedures.
Researchers concluded that biofilm formation and persistent moisture inside endoscope channels remain major patient safety concerns and warned that the “margin of safety” in endoscope reprocessing may be very small.
A newly published study is raising renewed concerns about Olympus duodenoscope contamination risks, suggesting that current testing methods may fail to reliably detect dangerous bacteria on reusable scopes used during ERCP procedures.
The research, published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in 2025, analyzed seven years of microbiologic surveillance data involving reusable duodenoscopes used at a major medical center in the Netherlands.
Researchers reviewed 556 duodenoscope cultures and found that 33.3% tested positive for microorganisms of gut or oral origin, including bacteria linked to serious infections.
More concerning, the study concluded that current duodenoscope culturing methods may miss contamination at a significant rate.
Depending on the testing scenario, researchers estimated that culture sensitivity may be as low as 82.2%, meaning contaminated scopes could be cleared for continued patient use after false-negative test results.
The researchers estimated that between 12.3% and 23.7% of ERCP procedures during the study period may have involved contaminated duodenoscopes.
The study warned that reliance on a single negative culture result to return a duodenoscope to service “should be re-evaluated,” particularly because biofilm inside endoscope channels may prevent proper sampling and allow bacteria to evade detection.
Olympus duodenoscopes have been at the center of litigation and regulatory scrutiny for years following outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections linked to contaminated scopes.
Federal health agencies previously tied certain outbreaks to design features that allegedly made the devices difficult to fully clean and disinfect between procedures.
Hundreds of patients nationwide have filed Olympus duodenoscope lawsuits alleging they developed severe infections after undergoing ERCP procedures involving contaminated reusable scopes.
Plaintiffs have claimed manufacturers failed to adequately warn hospitals and physicians about contamination risks tied to the devices’ design.
The new study may add to ongoing concerns surrounding whether existing reprocessing and surveillance protocols are sufficient to prevent patient exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, especially as researchers concluded that contaminated devices may remain in clinical use despite repeated testing.
Olympus scope lawsuits allege that certain reusable Olympus Medical Devices exposed patients to bacteria after endoscopic procedures.
Claims involve contaminated Olympus endoscopes and related medical instruments that allegedly retained biological material in hard-to-clean areas after reprocessing.
Federal regulators have acknowledged that some duodenoscope contamination risks remained even when a hospital or healthcare provider followed the manufacturer’s cleaning instructions.
The reported injuries include bacterial infections caused by drug resistant organisms, including cases that led to sepsis, repeat hospitalization, and infections requiring IV antibiotics.
In 2018, Olympus pleaded guilty to federal charges for failing to report adverse events involving duodenoscope infections and paid an $85 million criminal penalty.
Lawsuits also allege that Olympus failed to warn health officials and the public about known infection risks associated with these devices.
Recent regulatory actions add detail to those allegations:
Olympus duodenoscope litigation is tied to infection transmission during procedures that patients underwent for diagnosis or treatment.
The allegations focus on whether medical device manufacturers sold reusable scope systems that could not be reliably reprocessed under real clinical conditions.
Those claims involve duodenoscopes, related accessories, and other Olympus products used in invasive procedures.
Patients who developed serious infections after exposure to these devices may seek to pursue compensation for medical treatment, lost income, and other procedure-related losses.
Olympus scopes are flexible endoscopic medical instruments developed through Olympus Endoscopy, a division of the medical device company Olympus Corporation.
These devices allow physicians to view and treat internal areas of the body without open surgery by inserting a thin, camera-equipped tube through natural openings or small incisions.
Olympus produces a wide range of scopes used across specialties, including gastrointestinal, pulmonary, urological, and surgical procedures.
Among the most widely discussed in litigation are duodenoscopes, which are used during ERCP procedures to diagnose and treat conditions affecting the bile ducts and pancreas.
These procedures often involve navigating narrow anatomical pathways, which requires devices with intricate internal components and moving parts.
Olympus scopes are used in hospitals and outpatient settings as standard tools for diagnosing disease, removing blockages, taking biopsies, and guiding minimally invasive treatment.
Common procedures involving Olympus scopes include:
Reusable endoscopic devices must undergo cleaning and disinfection between each use to reduce the risk of infection and protect patient safety.
These steps include manual cleaning, high-level disinfection, drying, and storage, often supported by automated endoscope reprocessors designed to standardize parts of the process.
The effectiveness of reprocessing depends on strict adherence to proper procedures and the ability to access all internal surfaces of the device.
Olympus duodenoscopes present a known challenge because their design includes an elevator channel that is difficult to fully clean.
The geometry of this channel contains microscopic gaps and moving parts that can trap biological material and bacteria, allowing biofilms to develop and resist standard cleaning methods.
Studies and regulatory findings have shown that complete sterilization may not be achieved in some cases, even when cleaning protocols are followed correctly.
In response, regulators have required more detailed reprocessing manuals, enhanced inspection protocols, and additional safeguards to address persistent contamination risks associated with these devices.
Olympus scopes have been repeatedly associated with infection events involving patients exposed to a contaminated device during endoscopic procedures.
Internal investigations and clinical findings have identified outbreaks tied to design limitations in duodenoscopes, particularly involving antibiotic resistant infections such as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE).
These infections are difficult to treat and have been linked to severe complications, including sepsis and organ failure, in patients who underwent otherwise routine procedures.
Between 2013 and 2024, contaminated Olympus duodenoscopes were connected to infections in hundreds of patients across the United States, with reports attributing at least 35 deaths to drug-resistant bacteria.
Hospitals involved in these outbreaks faced reputational harm, regulatory scrutiny, and, in some cases, significant legal settlements tied to patient exposure.
Clinical testing has also identified positive bacterial cultures in reprocessed scopes, including findings showing contamination rates of approximately 4.1% with high-concern organisms.
In response to infection concerns, Olympus issued an urgent field safety notice addressing risks associated with scope components and reprocessing limitations.
Infections linked to Olympus scopes can manifest as severe symptoms, including fever, chills, and abdominal pain, often developing within days or weeks after the procedure.
Procedures involving Olympus scopes have been linked to several serious bacterial infections, especially when bacteria remain on a scope after reprocessing.
FDA and CDC materials on duodenoscopes describe how complex parts can make these devices harder to fully clean, which helps explain why contamination has remained a concern even after disinfection steps.
Olympus Scopes have been linked to infections involving CRE (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae), a group of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can lead to sepsis, organ failure, or other life-threatening complications.
Reports and outbreak investigations have also identified E. coli, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas in connection with contaminated endoscopes, and a multicenter study found high-concern organisms on 4.1% of sampled Olympus duodenoscopes after reprocessing.
Unlike ordinary bacterial infections, these infections can become more serious more quickly and leave injured patients facing longer hospital stays, stronger antibiotics, and a more difficult recovery.
A bacterial infection after a scope procedure can move quickly from localized illness to a medical emergency.
Sepsis is the body’s extreme response to an infection and can rapidly lead to tissue damage, organ failure, and death without prompt treatment.
Bloodstream infections can also spread bacteria through the body, which is one reason many patients need hospitalization, IV antibiotics, repeat testing, and close monitoring after exposure to contaminated medical devices.
Severe infection may also trigger septic shock, a condition marked by dangerously low blood pressure and reduced blood flow to vital organs such as the kidneys, lungs, heart, and brain.
These complications help explain why Olympus scope claims often involve long recoveries, intensive care, or death rather than a short course of treatment.
Severe complications linked to infection can include:
Treatment for a serious infection after an Olympus scope procedure often starts in the hospital because these cases can worsen quickly and may involve sepsis, bloodstream infection, or respiratory failure.
Patients with sepsis often need ICU care, where clinicians can monitor blood pressure, breathing, oxygen levels, kidney function, and circulation while trying to stabilize the infection and prevent organ damage.
Early treatment usually includes intravenous fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by culture-guided changes once doctors identify the specific bacteria involved.
Some patients require prolonged antibiotic treatment, especially when the infection involves resistant organisms, spreads into the bloodstream, or proves difficult to clear after the initial hospital stay.
Treatment may also require source control, which can include draining infected fluid, removing infected tissue, or addressing the underlying site of infection so antibiotics have a better chance of working.
Recovery does not always end when the infection is gone, because many patients face secondary complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, kidney injury, clotting problems, weakness, fatigue, memory problems, or longer-term post-sepsis symptoms that can last for months or years.
Some patients also need ventilator support, rehabilitation, follow-up imaging or lab work, and extended medical care after discharge because severe infection can leave lasting damage even after the bacteria have been treated.
Scientific studies on reprocessed duodenoscopes found that contamination was still being detected after cleaning and disinfection, including in non-outbreak hospital settings.
The results showed that the problem was not limited to one hospital, one cleaning team, or one isolated infection cluster.
Researchers also found that contamination involved both high-concern organisms linked to disease and lower-concern organisms that still indicated incomplete reprocessing.
Federal surveillance work reached the same general conclusion and identified contamination levels that were higher than regulators had expected.
Published review data went further and showed that contamination persisted across multiple studies even after updated cleaning methods were introduced.
These findings gave regulators and hospitals measurable evidence that reusable duodenoscopes could remain contaminated after reprocessing.
Study findings include:
Olympus has been the subject of multiple FDA safety actions involving endoscopes and related accessories used in invasive procedures.
These actions include recalls tied to infection risk, device failure, and manufacturing issues affecting patient safety.
Several of the affected products were used repeatedly between patients, which increased the consequences of contamination or mechanical defects.
The FDA has also taken enforcement action against Olympus based on findings of violations of quality system regulations at manufacturing facilities.
Earlier regulatory scrutiny involved devices such as the TJF Q180V duodenoscope, which was associated with infection reporting failures and reprocessing concerns.
These regulatory actions required changes in how certain devices were used, cleaned, distributed, or removed from clinical settings.
Olympus recalls and safety alerts include:
FDA actions required hospitals and medical professionals to stop using certain devices, follow updated instructions, or transition to alternative products.
These events remain part of the regulatory history cited in Olympus scope litigation.
Olympus infection lawsuits focus first on duodenoscopes used in ERCP procedures, because those devices were repeatedly tied to contamination concerns, FDA action, and infection-reporting failures.
The TJF-Q180V duodenoscope appears most often in the public regulatory record, alongside older Olympus ERCP models that FDA placed under postmarket surveillance in 2015.
Olympus safety actions also involve other reusable scope categories and accessories used in pulmonary, urological, gynecological, and surgical procedures.
The FDA’s June 24, 2025 import-alert letter identified specific Olympus bronchoscopes, ureterorenoscopes, laparoscopes, and automated endoscope reprocessors manufactured in Japan.
The MAJ-891 recall involved an accessory used with compatible cystoscope, ureteroscope, choledochoscope, and hysteroscope lines.
Specific Olympus devices and product lines involved in infection lawsuits or related safety actions include:
Olympus scope litigation includes both devices used directly during procedures and accessories or reprocessing systems tied to contamination control.
Duodenoscope claims remain the main body of the infection cases. Later safety actions expanded the device list beyond ERCP products alone.
You may qualify to file a lawsuit if you underwent an endoscopy or colonoscopy involving an Olympus scope in 2015 or later and developed a serious infection shortly after the procedure.
TorHoerman Law is reviewing cases where patients were diagnosed with sepsis, a superbug infection such as CRE, or another severe bacterial illness that required hospitalization within 30 days of the scope.
In rare cases, claims may also involve HIV or tuberculosis exposure, although those conditions do not typically appear within that same time window.
Timing matters in these cases.
The infection must follow the procedure closely enough to raise concern that a contaminated scope or accessory may have been involved.
Medical records showing the procedure date, onset of symptoms, diagnosis, and hospitalization are critical when evaluating Olympus duodenoscope lawsuits and related claims.
Certain prior medical conditions can affect eligibility.
Cases are generally not accepted if the patient had dialysis, chemotherapy, recent surgery, existing infections, implants, or procedures involving orthoscopes, ureteroscopes, or cystoscopes in the 30 days before the scope, because those factors can introduce alternative sources of infection.
If your situation meets these criteria, TorHoerman Law may be able to provide legal representation and evaluate whether you have grounds to pursue a claim tied to a contaminated Olympus scope procedure.
Evidence in Olympus scope cases focuses on connecting the procedure, the device used, and the onset of infection within a defined timeframe.
These claims often require a detailed review of hospital records to determine whether a contaminated scope may have been involved.
Unlike simpler injury claims, medical device litigation involving infection requires proof of both exposure and resulting harm.
Documentation must show when the procedure occurred, what device was used, and how the infection developed afterward.
Evidence in Olympus scope infection cases may include:
Compensation in Olympus scope cases is based on the specific harm a patient experienced after the procedure, not a fixed payout amount.
In mass tort litigation, attorneys evaluate damages by reviewing medical records, treatment history, and the long-term impact of the infection on a patient’s health and daily life.
That process often includes calculating past and future medical expenses, lost income, and the extent of physical and emotional suffering tied to the infection.
Lawyers also compare similar infection-related cases and outcomes to build a claim that reflects the severity of the injury and the evidence available.
Potential compensation in an Olympus scope lawsuit may include:
Olympus scope infection cases require a careful review of medical records, procedure history, and the timing and severity of the infection.
TorHoerman Law examines whether a contaminated device may have been involved, along with the regulatory history and known risks tied to Olympus products.
These claims often involve detailed evidence and medical documentation, which is why early evaluation can make a difference in preserving records and identifying the source of infection.
If you or a family member developed a serious infection after an endoscopy or colonoscopy, TorHoerman Law is available to review your case in a free consultation.
Contact the firm to discuss your medical history, the procedure involved, and whether you may have grounds to pursue compensation related to an Olympus scope.
An Olympus scope is a type of flexible medical device used to examine and treat internal areas of the body without open surgery.
These devices are manufactured by Olympus Corporation, a global medical device company known for its endoscopy equipment.
Olympus scopes are commonly used in procedures such as endoscopy, colonoscopy, bronchoscopy, and ERCP to diagnose conditions, take biopsies, and perform minimally invasive treatments.
The scope includes a camera, light source, and internal channels that allow doctors to guide tools through the device during a procedure.
Many Olympus scopes are designed for repeated use and must be cleaned and disinfected between patients before being used again.
Infections during endoscopic procedures can occur when bacteria remain on a scope after it has been used on another patient.
These devices are reused, which means they must be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected between procedures to reduce contamination risk.
Certain scopes, especially duodenoscopes, contain complex parts and narrow channels that can make complete cleaning more difficult.
If bacteria are not fully removed, the next patient may be exposed during the procedure.
Infection risk increases when contamination is not detected and the device continues to be used.
Infections can happen due to:
Olympus scope lawsuits usually involve procedures in which a reusable Olympus scope was inserted into the body and later linked to a serious infection.
The most common claims involve gastrointestinal procedures, especially those using duodenoscopes during ERCP.
Other claims may involve additional endoscopic procedures if the patient later developed a qualifying infection after exposure to an Olympus scope or related accessory.
Procedures commonly involved include:
Yes, Olympus scope lawsuits are actively being filed in 2026, and law firms across the country are continuing to investigate new claims.
Patients have already filed lawsuits alleging that contaminated Olympus endoscopes and duodenoscopes caused serious infections after procedures such as ERCP, colonoscopy, and endoscopy.
These cases are typically individual product liability claims filed in state and federal courts rather than a single consolidated mass action.
Recent reporting describes a “next wave” of litigation, with new claims focusing on contamination risks, design issues, and failure to warn.
Lawsuits continue to be filed as new recalls, safety alerts, and infection reports emerge, including issues tied to accessories and newer Olympus devices.
Patients who developed serious infections after procedures are still coming forward, and attorneys are reviewing cases based on medical records, timing of infection, and device exposure.
As of now, Olympus duodenoscope and scope-related infection claims remain active, with new cases being accepted and evaluated based on specific eligibility criteria.
The statute of limitations for filing an Olympus scopes lawsuit varies by state and typically begins on the date the individual discovers their injury or, in wrongful death cases, the date of the victim’s death.
In most cases, the clock begins to run when the patient knew or should have known that an infection may be linked to a prior procedure.
Some states apply a “discovery rule,” which allows additional time if the connection between the infection and the scope was not immediately clear.
Claims involving wrongful death may follow a different timeline, usually starting from the date of death rather than the procedure.
Because these deadlines vary and can affect the ability to recover compensation, speaking with a lawyer as soon as possible is important to preserve your right to file a claim.
Yes. Legal action against Olympus includes private product liability suits, a 2018 federal criminal case over failure to file required adverse-event reports tied to duodenoscope infections, and civil whistleblower litigation over related regulatory issues.
On December 18, 2024, Olympus notified U.S. customers about the MAJ-891 Forceps/Irrigation Plug, and the FDA later described it as a Class I recall after reports of 120 serious injuries and 1 death tied to infection risk from improper or incomplete reprocessing.
On June 24, 2025, the FDA issued import alerts for certain Olympus devices manufactured in Japan, citing persistent quality system regulation problems; FDA’s letter identifies affected device categories, and industry reporting said the action blocked 58 models from entering the United States.
The FDA also announced a Class I recall for certain ViziShot 2 FLEX (19G) needles on September 30, 2025 because potentially deformed tips could injure patients.
FDA’s public notice ties that recall to 14 injuries and 1 death; I found that number in FDA and trade reporting, not 40 injuries.
Owner & Attorney - TorHoerman Law
Here, at TorHoerman Law, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Since 2009, we have successfully collected over $4 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TorHoerman Law, we believe that if we continue to focus on the people that we represent, and continue to be true to the people that we are – justice will always be served.
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
In this case, we obtained a verdict of $495 Million for our client’s child who was diagnosed with Necrotizing Enterocolitis after consuming baby formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $20 Million for our client after they suffered a Toxic Tort Injury due to chemical exposure.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $103.8 Million for our client after they suffered a COX-2 Inhibitors Injury.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $4 Million for our client after they suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury while at daycare.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $2.8 Million for our client after they suffered an injury due to a Defective Heart Device.
Here, at TorHoerman Law, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Since 2009, we have successfully collected over $4 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
They helped my elderly uncle receive compensation for the loss of his wife who was administered a dangerous drug. He consulted with this firm because of my personal recommendation and was very pleased with the compassion, attention to detail and response he received. Definitely recommend this firm for their 5 star service.
When I wanted to join the Xarelto class action lawsuit, I chose TorrHoerman Law from a search of a dozen or so law firm websites. I was impressed with the clarity of the information they presented. I gave them a call, and was again impressed, this time with the quality of our interactions.
TorHoerman Law is an awesome firm to represent anyone that has been involved in a case that someone has stated that it's too difficult to win. The entire firm makes you feel like you’re part of the family, Tor, Eric, Jake, Kristie, Chad, Tyler, Kathy and Steven are the best at what they do.
TorHorman Law is awesome
I can’t say enough how grateful I was to have TorHoerman Law help with my case. Jacob Plattenberger is very knowledgeable and an amazing lawyer. Jillian Pileczka was so patient and kind, helping me with questions that would come up. Even making sure my special needs were taken care of for meetings.
TorHoerman Law fights for justice with their hardworking and dedicated staff. Not only do they help their clients achieve positive outcomes, but they are also generous and important pillars of the community with their outreach and local support. Thank you THL!
Hands down one of the greatest group of people I had the pleasure of dealing with!
A very kind and professional staff.
Very positive experience. Would recommend them to anyone.
A very respectful firm.