What Are Olympus Endoscopes Used For?

Olympus manufactures reusable endoscopes and related accessories that allow physicians to see inside the body, diagnose disease, take samples, remove blockages, deliver therapy, and perform minimally invasive procedures. FDA materials describe Olympus endoscope categories as including urological endoscopes, duodenoscopes, and bronchoscopes, which are used to view and access the urinary tract, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Depending on the model and procedure, Olympus scopes may be used in:

  • ERCP (Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography) procedures: A duodenoscope is passed through the mouth, stomach, and into the duodenum to diagnose or treat problems involving the bile ducts, pancreatic duct, gallbladder, or liver
  • Bronchoscopy: A bronchoscope allows physicians to inspect or treat the airways and lungs
  • Cystoscopy and ureteroscopy: Urological scopes may be used to examine or treat the bladder, urethra, ureters, and kidneys
  • Hysteroscopy: A scope may be used to evaluate or treat conditions involving the uterus and cervix
  • Gastrointestinal procedures: Certain scopes help physicians evaluate the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, colon, or related structures

Many of these devices are designed to be reused. After a procedure, the device must be manually cleaned, disinfected or sterilized, dried, stored, and prepared for the next patient. The FDA has emphasized that manual cleaning before disinfection or sterilization is critical for duodenoscopes and it has also stated that the complex design of these devices can make effective reprocessing more difficult.

Common Injuries Associated with Olympus Endoscopes Complications

The injuries alleged in Olympus scope lawsuits usually involve infections that appear after a procedure involving a reusable scope or related accessory. Reported or alleged complications may include:

  • Severe bacterial infection requiring inpatient hospitalization
  • Sepsis or septic shock following the procedure
  • Bloodstream infection
  • Urinary tract infection
  • Pneumonia or respiratory infection after a bronchoscopy
  • Multi-drug-resistant organism (CRE, E. coli, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, or other difficult-to-treat organisms) diagnosed following the procedure
  • Infection requiring hospitalization, ICU care, IV antibiotics, or repeat procedures
  • Organ or tissue damage or organ failure attributable to the device
  • Thermal injury caused by the device during the procedure
  • Device component fracture or migration resulting in injury or requiring retrieval intervention
  • Wrongful death

Patients should seek medical attention promptly for symptoms such as fever, chills, worsening pain, confusion, low blood pressure, rapid heart rate, shortness of breath, unusual drainage, vomiting, or a sudden decline after an endoscopy-related procedure. A 2022 multicenter study of reprocessed duodenoscopes detected high-concern organisms in 5.3% of samples in non-outbreak settings, although the study cautioned that contamination does not automatically prove that a patient infection occurred.

The most important legal question is not simply whether an infection happened. The question is whether the timing, medical records, organism, procedure records, device information, and facility records suggest that the infection may have been caused or contributed to by a contaminated Olympus scope or accessory.

How Are the Medical Devices and Injuries Linked?

Olympus scope claims focus on the way reusable scopes and accessories are designed, cleaned, disinfected, and reused between patients. Duodenoscopes, for example, have small channels, moving parts, and a distal-end mechanism that can be difficult to fully clean. The FDA has stated that if a duodenoscope is not thoroughly cleaned and disinfected, tissue or fluid from one patient can remain in the scope and may lead to patient-to-patient infection transmission in rare cases.

The concern is not limited to ordinary dirt or visible debris. Some organisms can remain in small channels, crevices, seals, or hard-to-reach components after reprocessing. Researchers have reported that reprocessed duodenoscopes can still test positive for high-concern organisms and they have recommended continued efforts to improve instructions for use, human factors in reprocessing, staff training, reprocessing environments, and distal-end design.

FDA and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) records also provide important background for these claims. In 2018, Olympus Medical Systems Corporation pleaded guilty to distributing misbranded duodenoscopes after failing to file FDA-required adverse event reports involving serious infections, and the company was ordered to pay $80 million in fines and $5 million in criminal forfeiture. In 2023, the FDA issued a warning letter to Olympus subsidiary Aizu Olympus Co., Ltd., citing multiple violations of quality system regulations at a manufacturing facility in Japan. The violations included: (1) failure to adequately validate product designs, (2) failure to document and test manufacturing processes, and (3) failure to establish written procedures for reporting adverse events.

For the MAJ-891 Forceps/Irrigation Plug accessory used with certain Olympus endoscopes, the FDA’s recall database states that the Class I recall involved potential inadvertent retention of biomaterial when the reprocessing procedure was not performed as instructed, including not completely removing and disassembling the device. Olympus also announced a medical device advisory notice for MAJ-891 after complaints involving patient injuries and one death and advised customers to use alternative devices where available due to infection risk from improper reprocessing.

What are the Lawsuits About and Recent Litigation Updates?

Olympus scope lawsuits generally allege that patients developed serious infections after procedures involving Olympus endoscopes, duodenoscopes, bronchoscopes, cystoscopes, ureteroscopes, hysteroscopes, or related accessories. The claims may involve allegations of defective design, inadequate cleaning or reprocessing instructions, failure to warn, delayed reporting, quality-system failures, or failure to take timely corrective action.

Lawsuits involving Olympus scopes center on several core legal theories:

Defective design

Olympus duodenoscopes were defectively designed because their distal-end mechanism could not be adequately cleaned using available reprocessing methods. A properly designed device would allow for complete sterilization. The Olympus scopes did not. Design defect claims do not require proof that the manufacturer was negligent. They require proof that the device was unreasonably dangerous as designed and that a safer alternative design was feasible.

Manufacturing Defect

Olympus devices were defectively manufactured, deviating from the company’s design specifications in ways that increased their likelihood of harboring bacteria.

Failure to warn

Olympus knew or should have known that its duodenoscopes posed contamination risks that persisted even when hospitals followed the company’s own reprocessing instructions. The company had a duty to warn physicians, hospitals, and patients of these risks. It failed to do so adequately.

Negligence

Olympus failed to exercise reasonable care in how it tested, manufactured, and monitored their devices’ performance in real-world patients.

Key Recent Developments

2015 FDA safety focus

The FDA warned that duodenoscope design may impede effective reprocessing and later ordered duodenoscope manufacturers to conduct postmarket surveillance studies to assess contamination rates after reprocessing.

2018 Olympus guilty plea

Olympus Medical Systems Corporation pleaded guilty in federal court to distributing misbranded duodenoscopes after failing to file required adverse event reports involving infections and the company was ordered to pay $85 million in combined fines and forfeiture.

2023 FDA warning letters

The FDA announced warning letters involving Olympus Medical Systems Corporation and Aizu Olympus concerning medical device reporting and quality system regulation issues for endoscopes, endoscope accessories, and automated endoscope reprocessors.

2025 MAJ-891 recall and advisory

The FDA classified the MAJ-891 Forceps/Irrigation Plug recall as Class I, with the recall database listing 30,140 units in commerce and identifying the reason as potential biomaterial retention when reprocessing was not performed as instructed.

2025 FDA import alerts

On June 24, 2025, the FDA alerted health care providers that certain Olympus medical devices (58 products) manufactured at the Aizu facility in Japan would be subject to import alerts because the agency continued to have concerns about outstanding quality system regulation violations.

At this stage, many law firms are reviewing Olympus scope infection claims individually. Whether a claim can be filed, where it should be filed, and what defendants may be named depends on the patient’s procedure date, device information, infection diagnosis, medical history, and applicable statute of limitations.

Patients are seeking compensation for medical costs due to Olympus scope-related infections and subsequent hospitalization, lost wages and diminished earning capacity, physical pain and emotional suffering, loss of companionship (known legally as loss of consortium), and, in cases involving death, wrongful death damages.

Olympus scope lawsuits are set to be filed in both federal and state courts across the United States. While there is currently no formal multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidating all federal cases or a class action lawsuit, individual lawsuits continue to move forward as survivors and families come forward with claims.

Do You Qualify for an Olympus Scope Lawsuit?

Patients may qualify to file an Olympus Scope lawsuit if they meet certain criteria. To pursue an Olympus Scope injury claim, potential claimants generally must meet the following criteria:

Device:

  • You had a procedure involving an Olympus scope or Olympus scope accessory performed in 2018 or later at a U.S. medical facility.
  • The procedure involved an endoscope, duodenoscope, bronchoscope, cystoscope, ureteroscope, hysteroscope, choledochoscope, or related reusable scope component.

Injury:

  • You developed a serious infection within a medically relevant time period (90 days) after the procedure.
  • The infection required hospitalization, IV antibiotics, emergency care, ICU treatment, repeat procedures, or resulted in long-term complications.
  • Medical records identified a bacterial organism, drug-resistant organism, bloodstream infection, urinary tract infection, sepsis, pneumonia, or another serious infection.
  • A loved one died after a severe infection following a scope procedure.

The strongest claims often involve documented infections with organism identification, hospitalization records, procedure records, device records, facility notifications, or evidence of a known outbreak or recall. Even if you are uncertain whether your device model qualifies or whether your complications are related, speaking with an attorney can help clarify your situation.

Timing matters. Filing deadlines also vary by state and acting promptly helps preserve your legal rights and ensure that critical medical records and evidence are available. It’s important to contact a lawyer experienced in injuries related to defective medical devices as soon as possible to evaluate your legal options.

Contact Us Today

At LexLegal, we are committed to holding medical device manufacturers accountable for the harm caused by their defective products. We represent individuals and families who have suffered serious injuries from Olympus scope complications, and we are actively accepting new cases. Let us fight for you to hold the manufacturers accountable for your injuries and recover the compensation you deserve.

If you developed sepsis, a bloodstream infection, a drug-resistant bacterial infection, a severe urinary tract infection, pneumonia, organ complications, or other serious illness after an Olympus scope procedure, contact us today. We stand ready to assist you in pursuing fair compensation for your injuries to the fullest extent allowed under the law.

LexLegal offers free, confidential case evaluations to determine whether you qualify for an Olympus Scope lawsuit. Complete our instant case evaluation form. We’ll review your information and promptly respond about your legal options. Every Olympus Scope lawsuit we handle is taken on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no upfront costs for clients. Our firm is experienced in handling defective medical device cases, and we welcome any questions you may have.

Complete our instant case evaluation today to learn whether you may be eligible to file an Olympus Scope lawsuit.

avatar Start Claim
Locations

Get in Touch with LexLegal, PLLC