PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

2:21-mc-01230

Court:

Pennsylvania Western

Nature of Suit:

Judge:

Joy Flowers Conti

Firms

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. December 09, 2022

    Philips Wants Latest CPAP Foam MDL Complaint Tossed

    Philips RS North America LLC is asking a Pennsylvania federal court to throw out the latest complaint in multidistrict litigation alleging the company sold faulty ventilators, saying the bulk of the claims are preempted by federal law and that others fail to establish the alleged "conspiracy" to hide the supposed defect.

  2. June 21, 2022

    Philips Knew Of CPAP Foam Issues In 2015, Device Users Say

    Medical equipment company Philips Respironics for years ignored signs from consumers and its supplier that the noise-canceling foam used in its sleep apnea breathing machines degraded during use, according to a multidistrict litigation consolidated complaint filed in Pennsylvania federal court.

  3. April 25, 2022

    Philips Subpoenaed By DOJ Over Sleep Apnea Device Recall

    Royal Philips NV has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Department of Justice related to the recall of defective sleep apnea machines and respirators — a recall that's led to more than 100 lawsuits and multidistrict litigation — the company announced in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing Monday.

  4. February 17, 2022

    Attys From Four Firms Named To Co-Lead Philips CPAP MDL

    Four attorneys from Levin Sedran & Berman, Seeger Weiss, Lynch Carpenter, and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith will lead the multidistrict litigation in Pittsburgh's federal court over allegedly defective foam inside Philips sleep-apnea machines and respirators, the judge overseeing the case announced.

  5. November 15, 2021

    Philips Claims Order A Hurdle To Fixing Sleep Apnea Devices

    The U.S. arm of Koninklijke Philips NV has said a Pennsylvania federal court's order to preserve evidence for a multidistrict litigation was preventing the company from taking back and repairing thousands of defective sleep apnea machines, but plaintiffs' attorneys opposed letting the company dispose of the components it was replacing.