Endoscope and Duodenoscope Infection and Injury Lawsuits

Why Choose LegalGenius for Your Endoscope and Duodenoscope Infection and Injury Lawsuit?

Endoscope and duodenoscope infection claims may involve defective device design, failure to disclose known contamination risks, or breakdowns in cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization procedures within healthcare facilities. Many claims involve more than one responsible party. When you hire LegalGenius, we aim to connect the infection you suffered to the procedure and hold the healthcare provider responsible.

We bring the following advantages to your endoscope and duodenoscope infection and injury lawsuit:

• Proven Record With Severe Infection Cases: LegalGenius, PLLC has spent years representing those diagnosed with serious infections following medical procedures, including cases involving sepsis, bloodstream infections, or extended hospitalization. 
• Detailed Analysis of Device Design Failures: Duodenoscopes contain internal channels and movable components that can trap bacteria. LegalGenius, PLLC, evaluates whether the device could be fully disinfected: this includes assessing contamination risks in the elevator mechanism and internal surfaces.
• Direct Approach to Manufacturer Liability: Our product liability lawyers examine what manufacturers may have known about contamination risks, when those risks were identified, and how that information was communicated to medical providers.
• Evidence-Based Case Development: We review your procedure records to confirm the date of the ERCP or related procedure and the device involved. We then determine when symptoms began, what type of infection was diagnosed, and whether the bacteria is consistent with known scope-related contamination, such as CRE. 
• No Upfront Legal Fees: LegalGenius handles these claims on a contingency basis, so you only pay attorney fees if we win compensation for you. We also advance the costs associated with investigating the claim, obtaining medical records, working with medical professionals, and preparing the case. 

What Are Endoscopes and Duodenoscopes?

• Endoscopes are medical devices used to examine the inside of the body. They have long, flexible tubes equipped with a camera, light source, and channels, the latter of which allows doctors to pass small instruments through the device. Physicians use endoscopes to view internal organs, collect tissue samples, or perform certain treatments within the digestive tract.
• Duodenoscopes are a specialized type of endoscope used during a procedure called endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The device is guided through the mouth, down the esophagus, and into the small intestine to access the bile ducts and pancreas. One component, the elevator mechanism, helps guide instruments into narrow ducts, but it also creates small spaces where bacteria can remain after cleaning.

Unlike some medical tools, these devices are not discarded after a single use. Hospitals clean and disinfect them between procedures using a method known as reprocessing. When staff aren’t thorough, bacteria can remain inside the scope and be transmitted to the next patient during use.

Why Are Endoscopes and Duodenoscopes Linked to Infections?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Infection (CDC), infection outbreaks linked to duodenoscopes and other endoscopic devices have been reported for more than a decade. In several instances, investigations traced the source of the infection back to contaminated scopes that had been used on multiple patients.

Many of these infections involve bacteria that are difficult to treat with standard antibiotics. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) is one of the most serious examples. This type of bacteria can spread quickly once introduced into the body, particularly in patients who are already undergoing treatment for other conditions. Some patients recover after intensive care. Others experience lasting complications or do not survive the infection.

So why are these medical devices such an infection risk?

• Complex Internal Design: Duodenoscopes have narrow channels, sealed spaces, and internal components that make them hard to clean. These areas can trap bacteria, which may remain inside the device after reprocessing.
• Elevator Mechanism Risk: The elevator mechanism helps guide instruments into the bile and pancreatic ducts during ERCP procedures. This movable part creates small crevices and surfaces where bacteria can collect and resist removal.
• Limitations of Reprocessing Methods: Hospitals generally follow multi-step cleaning procedures, including manual scrubbing and high-level disinfection. Even when these steps are completed as instructed, some areas of the device may not be fully reached or disinfected.
• Biofilm Formation: Bacteria can form a protective layer known as biofilm on internal surfaces. Once biofilm develops, it can shield bacteria from disinfectants, allowing contamination to persist.
• Transmission Between Patients: When bacteria remain inside the device, they can be introduced into the body during the next procedure. This creates a direct pathway for infection, especially during invasive procedures like ERCP.
• Design-Related Contamination Risk: In several reported cases, infections occurred even when cleaning protocols were followed correctly. This has raised concerns that certain device designs may prevent full disinfection, which raises the question of manufacturer responsibility.

These factors help explain why duodenoscopes and similar devices have been linked to infection outbreaks across multiple healthcare settings. When contamination remains after cleaning, patients may be exposed to harmful bacteria during procedures that are expected to be safe.

Who Can Be Held Responsible for an Endoscope and Duodenoscope Infection and Injury?

Multiple parties may share fault in infection or injury cases involving endoscopes or duodenoscopes. Depending on the circumstances, they may include:

• Medical Device Manufacturers: Manufacturers may be held responsible when a device contains a design that prevents full disinfection or allows bacteria to remain after reprocessing. Liability may also arise when manufacturers fail to disclose contamination risks, delay safety updates, or continue distributing devices despite documented infection concerns.
• Hospitals and Healthcare Facilities: Hospitals are responsible for maintaining proper cleaning and disinfection protocols for reusable medical devices. A facility may be held liable if staff fail to follow required reprocessing steps, reuse contaminated equipment, or fail to respond to known infection risks within the facility.
• Physicians and Medical Staff: Physicians and staff may share responsibility when equipment is used under unsafe conditions. Liability may also arise if warning signs of infection are not quickly addressed following the procedure.
• Third-Party Reprocessing or Service Providers: Some healthcare facilities rely on outside vendors to clean, disinfect, or maintain endoscopic equipment. If a third-party provider fails to perform proper reprocessing or maintenance, patients may be injured as a result.
• Distributors or Supply Chain Entities: Entities involved in distributing or servicing medical devices may also be implicated if a defective device is placed into circulation or if known safety concerns are not properly communicated along the supply chain.

Liability in these cases depends on how the contamination occurred and which parties contributed to the failure. A single infection may trace back to multiple points of breakdown, each of which must be examined to determine responsibility.

Compensation Available in Endoscope and Duodenoscope Lawsuits

If you develop an infection or injury after an endoscopic procedure, you’re probably facing high medical bills and long-term health issues. Both are compensable under Michigan law. The type and amount of compensation you may receive will depend on the severity of your injury, the treatment you’ll need, and how the condition has affected your daily life.

• Medical Expenses: Your personal injury settlement may include the cost of hospitalization, diagnostic testing, antibiotic treatment, and follow-up care related to the infection. In more serious cases, it may also include future medical care, including ongoing monitoring, additional procedures, or long-term treatment.
• Lost Wages and Reduced Earning Capacity: Patients who are unable to work during recovery may seek compensation for lost income. If the infection leads to lasting limitations, your damages may also include reduced earning capacity.
• Pain and Suffering: Severe infections can result in prolonged physical pain, invasive treatment, and a difficult recovery period. Your compensation may account for the physical impact of the infection and its effect on daily functioning.
• Long-Term Medical Impact: Some patients experience permanent health complications, including organ damage or chronic conditions, following infection. This may result in additional damages tied to your ongoing care needs and diminished quality of life.
• Wrongful Death Damages: In cases involving loss of life, surviving family members may pursue compensation for funeral expenses, loss of financial support, and the impact of the loss on the family.
• Punitive Damages in Certain Cases: In cases involving serious misconduct (such as failure to address known risks), punitive damages may be awarded. These damages are intended to penalize wrongful conduct and deter similar actions in the future.

How Does an Endoscope and Duodenoscope Infection and Injury Lawsuit Work?

Endoscope and duodenoscope infection claims begin with a free case evaluation and may proceed through to litigation (although most personal injury cases settle). If you’re planning to file a claim, here’s an overview of the LegalGenius process.

• Initial Case Evaluation: We begin by reviewing your medical history, including the procedure performed, the type of device used, and the timing of the infection. We also identify potential sources of contamination and assess whether the circumstances support a lawsuit.
• Collection of Medical Records and Evidence: We obtain hospital records, procedure reports, infection diagnoses, and laboratory results. These materials are used to confirm the procedure you underwent, identify the device involved, and establish a timeline linking your infection to the procedure.
• Investigation of Device and Manufacturer: We examine the device model, manufacturer history, and any known safety concerns associated with that device. This may include reviewing FDA communications, prior infection reports, and documentation related to contamination risks.
• Consultation with Medical and Technical Professionals: Medical professionals evaluate your condition and the likely source of infection. Technical analysis may also address whether the device could be fully disinfected and whether its design contributed to contamination.
• Filing of Legal Claims: Once we collect enough evidence, we file a formal complaint against the responsible parties. This document outlines the legal claim itself and the damages sought.
• Settlement Negotiations or Trial: Some claims resolve through negotiated settlement based on the evidence presented. If a resolution is not reached, the case proceeds to trial, where the evidence is presented before a judge or jury. Our medical negligence and product liability lawyers have years of trial experience that they’ll put to work for you.

Speak to a Michigan Endoscope and Duodenoscope Infection and Injury Lawyer Today

Patients who develop infections after an endoscopic procedure may be dealing with serious medical complications for a long time. When an infection is linked to a contaminated device, you may be able to take legal action against the parties responsible for that exposure. 

LegalGenius, PLLC, is available to review potential claims involving endoscope or duodenoscope infections. We assess the procedure performed, the type of infection diagnosed, and the timing of symptoms to determine how the condition developed. If you or a family member developed an infection after an endoscopic procedure, contact us to discuss your situation. For more information, call 800-209-4000 or fill out our Ask the Genius™ form, and an attorney will contact you within five minutes. 

Endoscope and Duodenoscope Infection and Injury Lawsuit FAQS

How Long Do You Have to File a Personal Injury Lawsuit in Michigan?

In Michigan, the filing deadline for an endoscope or duodenoscope infection lawsuit depends on how the claim is classified. 

If your case involves a hospital, doctor, or cleaning failure, you generally have two years from the date of the medical negligence OR 6 months from when you discovered (or should have discovered) the injury, whichever is later. There is also an absolute 6-year cutoff (called a statute of repose), meaning you generally can’t file after that point, no matter when you discovered the problem.

If the claim targets the device manufacturer, you usually have three years from the date of injury. This is the deadline you’ll follow when the case is based on defective design, failure to warn, or similar issues.

What Is an ERCP Procedure and Why Is It Used?

An ERCP, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, is a medical procedure used to examine and treat conditions affecting the bile ducts, pancreas, and gallbladder. A duodenoscope is guided through the mouth into the small intestine, where instruments can be passed through the device to remove blockages, place stents, or take images. 

Physicians use ERCP to address conditions such as gallstones, tumors, or infections in the bile ducts. While the procedure is widely used, it involves inserting a reusable device deep into the body, which creates a risk of infection if the device is not fully disinfected between uses.

Can You File a Lawsuit if the Hospital Followed Cleaning Instructions?

Yes, a claim may still be filed even if the hospital followed the manufacturer’s cleaning instructions. 

Investigations have shown that some duodenoscopes contain internal components that cannot be fully disinfected through standard reprocessing methods. When this occurs, bacteria may remain inside the device despite proper handling by medical staff. 

In these situations, the claim may center on the device design or the adequacy of the manufacturer’s warnings. Liability may arise if the device cannot be safely used as intended or if known risks are not clearly communicated to healthcare providers responsible for cleaning and reuse.

How Do You Know Which Device Was Used During Your Procedure?

The type of device used during a procedure can usually be identified through hospital records, such as:

• Procedure reports
• Equipment logs
• Internal tracking systems

In some cases, this information is documented in sterilization records or inventory systems maintained by the facility. If the device is linked to prior safety concerns or infection reports, that information can become part of the claim. Accessing these records may involve formal requests, but they can help determine whether a contaminated device contributed to the infection.

What Should You Do if You Suspect an Infection After an Endoscopic Procedure?

If you develop symptoms such as fever, abdominal pain, nausea, or chills after an endoscopic procedure, you should seek medical attention as soon as possible. You should also inform your healthcare provider about the recent procedure, including the date and location where it was performed. 

Once a medical examination confirms that you’ve suffered compensable injuries, speak to a personal injury lawyer who can help you compile the evidence needed for a future medical negligence or product liability claim.

Are There Recalls or Safety Warnings Related to Duodenoscopes?

Yes, federal regulators have issued many safety communications about infection risks linked to duodenoscopes. 

These warnings have focused on the difficulty of cleaning certain device components, particularly internal channels and the elevator mechanism. There have also been reports of infections occurring even after updated guidance was followed. These safety actions may be relevant in a legal claim, as they can show when risks became known and how manufacturers responded to them over time.

Sources

• https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/4951-ercp-endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography 
• https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/hai/outbreaks/cdcstatement-la-cre.html
• https://www.cdc.gov/cre/about/index.html