Report Fraud About Us What We Do

Philips CPAP Recall Lawsuit

Consumer Class Actions

Philips CPAP Recall Lawsuit – After Recall, Now Multiple Class Actions For Harmful Ventilators…

After CPAP Recall, Philips Sued In Multiple Class Action Lawsuits By Customer Due To Allegations That Its Breathing Equipment Are Harmful To A Person’s Health 

After a public fiasco involving their medical breathing apparatus devices posing serious health concerns to its users, Philips has been slapped by multiple class action lawsuits alleging that the company’s breathing products contain harmful chemicals. 

This Article Covers Multiple Cases

Nick Manna V. Philips 

Lead Plaintiff Nick Manna sued Philips, arguing that the company has put the health and lives of its customers in danger with its ventilators. 

Additionally, he contended that Philip’s CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure), Bi-Level PAP (Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure), and mechanical ventilators all use a sound-controlling foam that disintegrates into small particles over time while at use. 

The small particles have a tendency to enter a person’s airways without them knowing along with other nearby individuals while a machine is in operation. 

It is noteworthy that Philips has released a recall order that details what customers and patients should do in order to safely dispose of their allegedly harmful Philips brand breathing support devices. 

The recall is believed to have encompassed millions of patients who were left to deal with the repercussions of the sudden change imposed on them. 

Philips Left Its Customers Hanging 

However, Manna declared that Philips did not do its part to fully protect its client base. In addition, he said that patients like him who use Philips’ breathing devices were left with high costs to pay in order to find a more suited and safer replacement for the recalled medical device they were using before. 

A Philips brand breathing apparatus costs hundred to thousands of dollars per piece. 

Philips is facing charges in court ranging from breach of contract and express warranty to violations of different state consumer protection statutes. 

The Philips CPAP Recall Lawsuit is also asking the judge to grant their request to establish and represent a Class consisting of Philips customers whose breathing devices were recalled.

Different Subclasses consisting of residents from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Massachusetts were also being petitioned. 

Philips North America Face Additional Cases After June Recall

Philips North America is facing four additional class action lawsuits brought by consumers in connection with the company’s June recall of fourteen positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices, bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) devices, as well as ventilators.

Philip Recall Over PE-PUR Foam

Philips initiated the recall after learning that the polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR foam) utilized to insulate the breathing devices could deteriorate and/or release harmful substances into the users’ lungs.

The voluntary recall impacted millions of Philips devices and resulted in filing a slew of class action lawsuits against the business by consumers across the country.

Among the allegations are that Philips was negligent in utilizing PE-PUR foam for insulating its devices. It ignored consumers’ warnings that the devices were causing them to become sick and that consumers were unaware of the recall until weeks after it was issued.

Edwin Murray V. Philips

Meanwhile, Edwin Murray, a new plaintiff from Massachusetts, alleges Philips has been nonresponsive regarding how consumers can receive replacement devices.

Murray claims he uses a Philips CPAP device nightly to treat his atrial fibrillation as well as severe sleep apnea. His doctor has warned him that stopping would have severe health consequences.

After learning about the recall, Murray claims that he attempted to use an older CPAP equipment but discovered that it did not operate properly, forcing him to continue utilizing Philips device, which he now concerns may have caused him to be sick.

Murray asserts that he recalls inhaling or swallowing black particles — which he believes were degraded PE-PUR foam — while using the CPAP device.

The fact that the plaintiff must continue using the defective breathing equipment despite being aware of the detrimental health implications he faces is causing Murray and his wife significant distress, the Philips CPAP Recall Lawsuit claims.

Philips advised users in its recall to stop using the CPAP and BiPAP devices immediately and seek alternative options if they were being utilized for life-sustaining therapy.

Philips also disclosed that exposure to PE-PUR foam might cause asthma, headaches, organ damage, and harmful carcinogenic effects.

Tiffany Hood-Penderghest V. Philips

Tiffany Hood-Penderghest, another lead plaintiff, argues in her Philips CPAP Recall Lawsuit lodged in federal court in New Jersey that Philips was aware of the issue concerning the PE-PUR foam long before it announced the recall.

Hood-Penderghest asserts that Philips continued to manufacture and sell the devices despite the awareness of its hazard to consumers.

Additionally, the plaintiff asserts that the device’s documentation omitted any warnings about the PE-PUR foam’s possible risks, including the possibility of degrading or off-gassing toxic substances.

San San Yu V. Philips

San San Yu, another plaintiff, reiterated identical concerns in her Philips CPAP Recall Lawsuit brought in federal court in Maryland, stating that Philips failed to adequately tell her or her healthcare practitioner of the device’s possible serious health dangers.

Yu asserts that she utilized her Philips CPAP device daily for approximately ten to eleven hours for her sleep apnea and feels it contributed to her developing thyroid and lung cancer, for which she underwent surgery in April and June of this year.

Michael Cornwell V. Philips

Meanwhile, plaintiff Michael Cornwell says in a class action lawsuit submitted in federal court in Ohio that his CPAP apparatus lost its value, putting his health in danger while also causing him financial injury.

Cornwell’s class action lawsuit argues that as a result of the health concerns associated with the ongoing use of these CPAP devices as well as the recall, the plaintiff’s Dream Station CPAP equipment is now worthless.

Plaintiff has either replaced or will have to replace the equipment at a high cost.

Cornwell alleges that he bought the device to treat his sleep apnea and that he used it regularly without being aware of any of the product’s possible hazards.

Plaintiffs Claim that Philips’ Continuous Recall Causes Destruction of Evidence

While Philips chooses to continue recalling defective sleep apnea machines, the company asserts that the court’s order to preserve evidence hinders it from recalling thousands of remaining defective sleep apnea machines for repair.

Is Philips Destroying Evidence?

The plaintiffs’ attorneys oppose extending the recall, claiming that the company discards defective components in order to replace them, which could compromise the ongoing litigation.

According to the memorandum supporting the order, the FDA requires Philips Respironics to recall the devices and replace the original PE-PUR sound abatement foam with a repaired or new device with FDA-approved replacement foam.

Due to the limited supply of new devices, it is important for Respironics to collect the recalled devices and repair them with FDA-approved replacement foam.

The PE-PUR foam, on the other hand, is expected to be important evidence in the case, and Philips is not preserving all of the foam removed during the retrofitting procedure, the plaintiff’s attorneys stated.

Philips had until Wednesday to submit a response brief with United States District Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

Over 90 cases filed against Koninklijke Philips alleging hazardous sleep apnea devices were consolidated into multidistrict litigation and assigned to a federal court in Pittsburgh for litigation.

The Western District of Pennsylvania was chosen as the most appropriate venue for the case since most of the Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), and mechanical ventilator devices were manufactured at the Philips factory outside Pittsburgh.

Case Name & No.: In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3014

Jurisdiction: U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

About The Company

Philips, or officially known as Koninklijke Philips N.V., is a company founded in 1891 in Eindhoven, Netherlands. The company is currently headed by its CEO, Frans van Houten and boasts a number of subsidiaries under its belt, namely Seaco, Magnavox, and others. As of 2020, Philips has recorded a revenue of more than €19 billion. 

Editor’s Note on Philips CPAP Recall Lawsuit 2021: 

This article features the latest news about the class action lawsuits filed against Philips by its customers after the company recalled a large number of its breathing devices after they were alleged to cause illnesses to its users. 

#1 Case Name & No.: Nick Manna v. Koninkelijke Philips N.V., et al. ; Case No.: 1:21-cv-11017

Jurisdiction: United States District Court of Massachusetts 

#2 Case Name & No.: Edwin Murray v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11598

Jurisdiction: United States District Court of Massachusetts 

#3 Case Name & No.: Tiffany Hood-Penderghest, et al. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al.

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

#4 Case Name & No.: San San Yu v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02503

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

#5 Case Name & No.: Michael Cornwell v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04860

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Products/Services Involved: CPAP, BiPAP, and ventilators

Allegation(s): Philips’ CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical breathing ventilators used a harmful material that can cause sickness to a patient using the device. 

What are your thoughts on this piece? Please send us a message by clicking the ‘Contact Us’ button below! We’d love to hear back from you.

Contact Us

You can also reach out to us on Twitter or Facebook or via email at Outreach@ConsiderTheConsumer.com. Also, directly on our website! We look forward to hearing from you.

Read About The Recall: Philips Ventilators Recall.

Interested in posts like these? Stay up to date with our newsletter!

No thoughts on “Philips CPAP Recall Lawsuit – After Recall, Now Multiple Class Actions For Harmful Ventilators…” yet. Be the first to speak your mind!

Leave a Reply