Active Litigation
Olympus Scope Lawsuit Facts
TorHoerman Law is investigating claims for the Olympus Scope Lawsuit.
Active Litigation
TorHoerman Law is investigating claims for the Olympus Scope Lawsuit.
A colonoscopy infection lawsuit may be available when a patient develops a serious bacterial infection after colonoscopy procedures involving an allegedly contaminated or defective reusable scope.
This page is intended for patients and families dealing with post-colonoscopy complications, including sepsis, C. diff, drug-resistant infections, hospitalization, and other severe health effects.
We explain how Olympus scopes may become contaminated, the recalls and reprocessing problems involving certain colonoscope models, and multiple lawsuits alleging that defective or inadequately reprocessed scopes caused serious infections.
TorHoerman Law is investigating claims involving patients who developed life-threatening infections after colonoscopy procedures involving Olympus scopes and required hospitalization or significant medical treatment.

Colonoscopy procedures are among the most common endoscopic procedures performed in the United States, but serious infections can occur when bacteria enter the body through contaminated equipment or another source of exposure.
Although infection rates are low overall, bacterial exposure during or after a scope procedure can lead to fever, diarrhea, severe abdominal pain, bloodstream infections, sepsis, and other worsening symptoms that require hospitalization.
Patients may face a greater risk of infection when a reusable colonoscope is not adequately cleaned, disinfected, dried, or stored, or when damage or a device defect interferes with effective reprocessing.
A lawsuit involving an infection after a colonoscopy can follow a product liability pathway when a defective scope is alleged or a medical malpractice pathway when negligent reprocessing, infection control, or other medical care is alleged.
A colonoscopy-related infection does not automatically equate to malpractice, and simply developing an infection after a colonoscopy is not sufficient to establish a legal claim.
Legal claims generally require establishing causation and proving liability through medical records, device information, reprocessing evidence, and other facts connecting the infection to a product defect or negligent conduct.
Establishing causation can be challenging because recent antibiotic use, prior infections, other healthcare exposures, underlying medical conditions, and additional procedures may provide alternative explanations for how the infection developed.
TorHoerman Law is currently investigating cases involving serious infections related to Olympus scopes and reviewing the medical, procedural, and device evidence to determine whether affected patients may have grounds to pursue compensation.
If you or a loved one developed a serious infection after a colonoscopy involving an Olympus scope, TorHoerman Law can review your medical and procedure records to determine whether you may qualify to file a colonoscopy infection lawsuit.
You can also use the chat feature on this page to find out if you qualify for a colonoscopy infection lawsuit.
If you developed a serious infection after a colonoscopy involving an Olympus scope, you may be able to pursue a product liability claim against the companies responsible for the device.
These cases involve allegations that reusable Olympus colonoscopes can retain bacteria or contaminated biological material when problems with the scope, its internal channels, repair, or reprocessing prevent the device from being adequately cleaned between patients.
Patients have reported postprocedure infection after procedures ranging from a routine screening colonoscopy to other diagnostic and therapeutic examinations, with some infections progressing to sepsis and requiring hospitalization.
Symptoms such as fever, persistent diarrhea, worsening abdominal discomfort, severe abdominal pain, chills, weakness, or confusion after a colonoscopy may require immediate medical attention.

A serious infection following a colonoscopy does not automatically prove that the Olympus device caused the illness, and attorneys must consider other risk factors such as recent antibiotic use, prior infection, hospitalization, and other healthcare exposures.
The investigation focuses on the specific scope used, whether it had a history of repair or reprocessing problems, the timing and type of infection, and whether medical and device records support contamination as the source.
Olympus has faced longstanding infection concerns involving reusable Olympus endoscopes and duodenoscopes, while more recent recalls and lawsuits have specifically raised contamination concerns involving certain Olympus colonoscope models.
Patients may face a higher risk of severe complications when an infection is not identified quickly, and TorHoerman Law is investigating claims involving people who developed serious infections after colonoscopy procedures performed with Olympus scopes.
Reusable colonoscopes come into contact with stool, mucus, blood, and other biological material during every procedure, allowing bacteria to enter the device’s narrow internal channels.
If that material is not completely removed before the scope is reused, bacteria can remain inside the device and potentially be introduced into another patient’s gastrointestinal tract.
Damage inside the channels, retained moisture, incomplete cleaning, or ineffective disinfection can make contamination more difficult to eliminate.
Studies and FDA records have documented residual microorganisms, moisture, debris, and reprocessing problems involving reusable colonoscopes, including certain Olympus models.

Contamination can persist or develop when:
Infections after a colonoscopy can present differently depending on the bacteria involved and whether the infection remains in the gastrointestinal tract or spreads to the bloodstream.
Some mild discomfort, bloating, or cramping can occur after endoscopy or the removal of polyps, but persistent abdominal pain, fever, chills, watery diarrhea, vomiting, weakness, confusion, or a rapid heart rate can indicate a more serious complication.
If bacteria from contaminated reusable devices enter the colon during a procedure, they may cause gastrointestinal disease or spread beyond the digestive tract.
Organisms identified in colonoscope contamination studies and Olympus scope reports include E. coli, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, C. diff, carbapenem-resistant bacteria, and Salmonella.
The noticeable symptoms of these infections vary widely, from diarrhea and abdominal cramping to fever, low blood pressure, altered mental status, and other signs of systemic infection.
Symptoms of infection can appear within 7 to 30 days post-colonoscopy.
Severe cases can result in infection-related hospitalization, sepsis, and damage to organs such as the kidneys and liver.

Infections and complications associated with contaminated colonoscopes may include:
Infection after colonoscopy is uncommon overall, but reported rates vary depending on the type of procedure, patient population, medical facility, and length of follow-up.
A large U.S. study of ambulatory surgery centers found infection-related emergency department visits or unplanned hospital admissions within seven days at a rate of 1.1 per 1,000 screening colonoscopies.
The same study found a higher rate of 1.6 infections per 1,000 non-screening colonoscopies, which are more likely to involve patients undergoing evaluation or treatment for an existing medical condition.
A separate nationwide study of symptomatic patients who underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy found that 0.37% developed an infection within 30 days, compared with 0.04% of matched patients who did not undergo either procedure.
Infection rates also varied considerably among individual ambulatory surgery centers, ranging from 0 to 115 per 1,000 screening colonoscopies and from 0 to 132 per 1,000 non-screening procedures, so the 115-per-1,000 figure represents the high end observed at particular facilities rather than the typical risk for a colonoscopy.
Older age was identified as one predictor of postendoscopic infection, and separate research found substantially higher overall 30-day complication rates among patients age 75 and older than among patients ages 50 to 74.
These studies measured infections occurring after colonoscopy and do not establish that a contaminated scope caused every infection included in the results.
For an Olympus scope claim, attorneys must determine whether the patient’s infection developed after the procedure and whether medical records, device information, reprocessing evidence, or other findings support the colonoscope as the source.
Olympus manufactures reusable video colonoscopes, including the CF-HQ190L and several PCF-series models, that contain internal working channels requiring cleaning, high-level disinfection, drying, and storage before the devices can be used on another patient.
A 2015 study specifically examining Olympus colonoscopes and gastroscopes found viable microorganisms in 64% of sampling encounters immediately after high-level disinfection, even though researchers observed staff following established reprocessing guidelines.
After overnight storage, 9% of the sampled scopes remained culture-positive, and researchers also detected protein, carbohydrate, hemoglobin, and other biological residue on some devices.
A separate 2016 study of patient-ready gastrointestinal endoscopes recovered viable bacteria from three of the five colonoscopes tested.

Investigators in that study identified contaminated rinse water as a possible source for one organism, so the results documented residual contamination without establishing that an Olympus design defect caused every positive culture.
Olympus recalled 15 PCF-series colonoscope models in 2023after determining that a post-repair channel-drying process had not been validated and that some scopes were returned with wet internal channels, which FDA said could permit contamination and create an infection risk.
Another 2023 recall involving certain PCF-H190L and PCF-H190DL colonoscopes addressed a repair defect that FDA said could interfere with effective reprocessing and expose patients to contaminated material and subsequent infection.
Olympus CF-HQ190L and PCF-series colonoscopes are reusable video endoscopes used for screening, diagnosis, biopsy, polyp removal, and other lower gastrointestinal procedures.
These devices contain narrow internal channels that must be cleaned, disinfected, completely dried, and properly stored before they are used on another patient.
FDA records have identified reprocessing and repair problems affecting several Olympus colonoscope models, including defects that could leave moisture or contaminated material inside the device and increase the potential for infection.

Specific Olympus colonoscope models identified in recalls, studies, and current litigation include:
Patients who developed serious infections after procedures involving Olympus scopes have filed product liability lawsuits alleging that contaminated reusable devices exposed them to dangerous bacteria.
In July 2026, a federal lawsuit filed in Illinois alleged that an Olympus CF-HQ190L colonoscope used during a 2024 colonoscopy caused a C. diff infection that later required a 10-day hospitalization.
The complaint alleges that defects in the colonoscope and its reprocessing instructions allowed biological material and bacteria to remain inside the device’s internal channels between patients.
Related Olympus scope infection lawsuits filed in 2026 involve other reusable gastrointestinal scopes and raise similar allegations concerning contamination, reprocessing, and inadequate warnings.
A June 2026 wrongful death lawsuit filed in Washington alleges that an Olympus TJF-Q190V duodenoscope transmitted a vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) infection during an ERCP, followed by septic shock, organ failure, and death.

Another Olympus product liability case was moved to federal court in Pennsylvania in August 2026, adding to the number of individual scope-related claims being pursued against the manufacturer.
These cases are not part of an Olympus colonoscope MDL or class action, and TorHoerman Law is investigating whether patients who developed C. diff, sepsis, drug-resistant infections, or other serious illnesses after procedures involving Olympus colonoscopes may also have grounds to file an individual product liability lawsuit.
You may qualify for a colonoscopy infection lawsuit if you underwent a colonoscopy involving an Olympus scope and developed a serious infection that required treatment in an emergency room, hospitalization, or other significant medical care shortly after the procedure.
TorHoerman Law is currently reviewing claims involving patients who developed C. diff, sepsis, drug-resistant bacterial infections, and other serious illnesses after qualifying procedures, including cases where symptoms such as fever, severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, or rectal bleeding progressed into a life-threatening condition.
Medical records from your healthcare provider and medical team can help establish when the procedure occurred, when symptoms began, what infection was diagnosed, and whether an Olympus colonoscope was used.
Attorneys must also consider other possible causes and risk factors, including recent antibiotic use, prior common infections, additional healthcare procedures, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or other conditions that may affect the gastrointestinal tract or immune system.

A product liability claim may be stronger when the evidence connects the infection to a specific Olympus scope, its repair or reprocessing history, or a documented device problem rather than to unrelated screening tests or other medical exposures.
Some colonoscopy cases may also involve informed consent allegations asserting that a patient was not adequately informed about relevant risks, although the Olympus claims TorHoerman Law is investigating primarily concern whether allegedly defective or contaminated scopes caused serious infections.
Filing deadlines vary significantly by jurisdiction and may begin from the date of the procedure, the date the injury was discovered, or another point established by state law, so patients who suspect a scope-related infection should have the applicable statute of limitations reviewed as soon as possible.
A colonoscopy infection claim requires evidence connecting the procedure and specific scope to the infection while accounting for other possible sources of exposure.
Attorneys typically review the timing of the colonoscopy, laboratory-confirmed diagnosis, hospitalization, medical history, and available device records to determine whether a contaminated Olympus colonoscope may have contributed to the illness.

Evidence that may support a claim includes:
Damages are the financial and non-financial losses a patient may recover when a defective or contaminated colonoscope is shown to have caused a serious infection.
The value of a colonoscopy infection claim depends on factors such as the severity of the infection, length of hospitalization, treatment required, lost income, and whether the patient developed permanent complications.
Attorneys may also consider recurrent infections, future medical needs, and the effect of the illness on the patient’s ability to work and complete normal daily activities.
Recoverable damages vary by case and depend on the available evidence and the law governing the claim.

Potential compensation in a colonoscopy infection lawsuit may include:
TorHoerman Law is investigating claims involving patients who developed C. diff, sepsis, drug-resistant bacterial infections, and other serious illnesses after colonoscopy procedures performed with Olympus scopes.
Our attorneys can review your procedure records, infection diagnosis, hospitalization history, scope information, and other available evidence to determine whether a contaminated or defective colonoscope may have contributed to your illness.

We also evaluate other possible sources of infection and the timing of your symptoms before determining whether the evidence supports a product liability claim.
If you or a loved one developed a serious infection after a colonoscopy involving an Olympus scope, contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.
Colonoscopy infection claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning you do not pay attorney fees unless compensation is recovered for you.
You can also use the chat feature on this page for a free case review and to find out whether you may qualify for a colonoscopy infection lawsuit.
Serious infection after colonoscopy is uncommon, but the reported incidence depends on the type of procedure and patient population.
One large U.S. study found infection-related emergency department visits or unplanned hospital admissions within seven days at rates of 1.1 per 1,000 screening colonoscopies and 1.6 per 1,000 non-screening colonoscopies.
The researchers concluded that postendoscopic infections were more common than previously thought and varied substantially among facilities, although these figures include infections from multiple possible causes and do not establish that contaminated scopes caused them.
An infection may become noticeable within days or weeks after a colonoscopy, depending on the organism involved, the patient’s health, and the source of exposure.
There is no single incubation period that can establish whether a colonoscope caused an infection based on timing alone.
For C. diff specifically, symptoms associated with antibiotic exposure commonly begin within 5 to 10 days but can appear considerably later.
TorHoerman Law is currently reviewing qualifying Olympus scope cases involving serious infections that developed after the procedure and required hospitalization.
Symptoms can include fever, chills, persistent or worsening abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, abdominal swelling, weakness, rectal bleeding, rapid heart rate, or confusion.
Johns Hopkins Medicine advises patients to contact their healthcare provider after colonoscopy for symptoms including fever or chills, frequent bloody stools, belly pain or swelling, a hardened abdomen, or inability to pass gas.
Some bloating and mild discomfort can occur normally after the procedure, but severe or worsening symptoms should not be assumed to be part of routine recovery and may require evaluation by a doctor.
Yes, a contaminated colonoscope can potentially transmit bacteria that cause a serious infection, and an infection that spreads into the bloodstream can progress to sepsis.
Reusable colonoscopes directly contact intestinal contents, and failures involving cleaning, disinfection, drying, damage, or storage can leave microbial contamination inside internal channels.
Sepsis is a life-threatening response to infection and may cause rapid heart rate, altered mental status, low blood pressure, breathing problems, or organ dysfunction.
A sepsis diagnosis after colonoscopy does not by itself prove that the scope was responsible, so the patient’s medical history and device records must also be reviewed.
FDA records document recalls involving numerous Olympus CF- and PCF-series colonoscopes.
A 2023 recall involving an unvalidated post-repair drying process included models such as the PCF-H190L, PCF-H190DL, PCF-HQ190L, PCF-HQ190I, PCF-Q180AL, and other PCF models.
FDA stated that water remaining inside channels could permit contamination and create an infection risk.
FDA records also document separate 2023 recalls involving the CF-HQ190L, PCF-H190L, and PCF-H190DL after repair problems were identified that could interfere with effective reprocessing and expose patients to contaminated material.
Not every Olympus recall involved infection risk, so the specific model, serial number, recall reason, and date should be reviewed rather than assuming that any recalled colonoscope caused an infection.
Patients are not routinely told the manufacturer, model, or serial number of the colonoscope used during a procedure, but the information may be available in hospital or endoscopy-center records.
Start by requesting your colonoscopy report and complete procedure records from the facility where the procedure was performed, whether it was a routine screening, polyp follow-up, or evaluation related to colon cancer or another gastrointestinal condition.
Device tracking, endoscopy logs, maintenance records, or reprocessing records may identify the manufacturer, model, and serial number even when that information does not appear in the standard discharge paperwork.
An attorney can also request additional facility records when determining whether an Olympus scope was used.
The deadline to file a colonoscopy infection lawsuit depends on the state whose law applies and the legal claims involved.
Statutes of limitations can begin running from the date of the procedure or injury, the date the patient discovered or reasonably should have discovered the injury, or another date established by state law.
Product liability, wrongful death, and other claims may also be subject to different deadlines or statutes of repose.
Because these deadlines vary significantly by jurisdiction, patients should not assume that the amount of time available remains left unchanged simply because treatment is ongoing or the connection between the colonoscopy and infection was discovered later.
An attorney can review the procedure date, diagnosis date, state law, and other facts to determine the filing deadline that may apply.

Tor Hoerman has represented injured individuals for more than 30 years, with experience spanning individual personal injury cases and nationwide mass tort litigation. His work includes car accidents, catastrophic injuries, product liability claims, and other serious injury cases. Tor has served in court-appointed leadership roles in national litigation and tried cases involving major corporate defendants.
TorHoerman Law’s legal content is researched and written by our editorial team and attorneys for legal accuracy, clarity, and relevance. We rely on statutes, court records, government publications, medical research, and other authoritative sources when applicable. This page provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice.
TorHoerman Law reviews its legal content for factual accuracy, current information, and relevant legal context before publication and as material developments occur. This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance about a specific case, contact TorHoerman Law.
You can learn more about this topic by visiting any of our Olympus Scope Lawsuit pages listed below:
A serious injury can change your life.

TorHoerman Law represents people whose lives have been disrupted by serious injuries, unsafe products, and negligence. Our attorneys handle individual personal injury cases as well as national mass tort lawsuits involving major corporations.
Founded in 2009, our legal team brings more than 100 years of combined experience handling serious injury and complex civil litigation.
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.
A serious injury can change your life.