Bronchoscopy Infection Lawsuit — Legal Rights After a Contaminated Bronchoscope

Super Lawyers® 2014–2024CALL 24/7(888) 348-2735

Olympus Scope — Infection Claims

Hospitalized With an Infection After a Scope Procedure?

If you were told it was “just a complication,” Olympus’s federal guilty plea — and $85 million in penalties — tell a different story. In two minutes, you can know whether your case qualifies.

ACTIVE LITIGATION. 250+ patients · most recent filing: June 2026 · deadlines vary by state — some as short as one year.

Were you hospitalized with an infection within 30 days of an endoscopy or scope procedure?

Yes — See If My Case Qualifiesfree · takes 2 minutes
I think so / not sure

Free · confidential · no fee unless there is a recovery · answering doesn’t commit you to anything. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

Prefer to talk it through? (888) 348-2735 — free and confidential.

Stefanie A. Murphy & Matthew T. Marin

Partners

You’ll get a straight answer even if it’s “you don’t qualify.” Everything you share is confidential — even if you never hire us. No fee unless there is a recovery; costs are advanced and reimbursed only out of a recovery. If you do qualify, our Olympus scope litigation team requests the medical and hospital records — you don’t chase them.

Qualification depends on what the medical records show — the scope involved, the infection, and the timing. We’ll review them and give you a straight answer either way.

Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

Are Olympus Bronchoscopes Included in the Scope Infection Lawsuit?

Yes. Bronchoscopes manufactured by Olympus — including the BF-series — are a confirmed device class in this litigation, unblocked for intake as of April 6, 2026. The same contamination mechanism that made Olympus duodenoscopes the subject of years of federal enforcement action applies to bronchoscopes: biological material from one patient can survive standard reprocessing and be transmitted to the next patient who undergoes a procedure with the same scope.

In June 2023, the FDA issued a Class I Recall covering 19 Olympus bronchoscope models, including the BF-1TH190. Class I is the FDA’s most serious recall classification — reserved for situations where there is a reasonable probability that use of the device will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. The recall was issued for airway fire and burn risk, but the underlying contamination risk derives from the same design issues affecting all Olympus flexible endoscopes: complex internal channels that trap biological material and resist complete disinfection even when hospital staff follow manufacturer instructions exactly.

Peer-reviewed medical literature has documented bronchoscope-related infection outbreaks for over four decades. A landmark CDC investigation published in JAMA traced a 1995 outbreak of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in South Carolina to a single contaminated bronchoscope that transmitted strain W1 of M. tuberculosis between patients; two of the affected patients died of MDR-TB within one month of diagnosis (Source: Michele TM et al., JAMA. 1997;278(13):1073-1077).

A comprehensive 2020 review of FDA MAUDE adverse-event data concluded that bronchoscope reprocessing failures — driven by the same complex internal channel designs that cause biofilm formation in duodenoscopes — pose continuing risks of multidrug-resistant organism transmission (Source: Mehta AC, Muscarella LF. Chest. 2020;157(2):454-469). Approximately 500,000 bronchoscopies are performed annually in the United States.

These procedures are essential for diagnosing and treating lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and other serious respiratory conditions. The patients who undergo bronchoscopy are often already immunocompromised — which means a post-procedure infection can be catastrophic.

What Is the Olympus Scope Lawsuit?

The Olympus scope infection litigation is a product liability action involving patients across multiple states and multiple documented hospital outbreaks. At its center is a finding that Olympus Corporation — the manufacturer of the world’s most widely used flexible endoscopes — knew its devices could not be reliably cleaned using the instructions it provided to hospitals, failed to report that information to the FDA, and allowed patients to be exposed to potentially deadly bacteria for years before federal regulators took action.

In December 2018, Olympus Medical Systems Corporation and former senior executive Hisao Yabe pleaded guilty in federal court to three counts of distributing misbranded medical devices. Olympus paid $85 million in penalties and admitted that it failed to file required adverse-event reports — including known infection events — from the FDA. (Source: DOJ press release, December 10, 2018; Case No. 2:18-cr-00727-SRC, U.S. District Court, D.N.J.) The FDA’s enforcement record against Olympus extends over a decade.

In February 2015, the FDA issued a Safety Communication acknowledging that 75 Medical Device Reports involving approximately 135 patients had been filed between January 2013 and December 2014 alone — before any public warning had been issued. (Source: FDA Safety Communication, February 19, 2015.) In March 2018, FDA issued Warning Letter MARCS-CMS 546986 because Olympus had failed to establish a single mandatory postmarket surveillance site more than two years after being ordered to do so.

Most recently, in October 2025, Olympus issued an Urgent Field Safety Notice for its current-generation TJF-series duodenoscopes — admitting that prior reprocessing protocols were insufficient and that hospitals had never been told that 10X magnification tools were required to properly inspect the scopes. That notice confirmed 2 deaths and 5 serious injuries linked to the current-generation devices. (Source: Olympus Urgent Field Safety Notice, October 14–17, 2025.) In December 2024, a Class I Recall of the MAJ-891 Forceps/Irrigation Plug covered 30,140 units in U.S. commerce, with 120+ reported injuries and 1 confirmed death.

(Source: FDA Recall Z-0905-2025.) In June 2025, FDA Import Alert 89-04 blocked 58 Olympus device models from U.S. entry due to ongoing quality system violations at Olympus’s manufacturing facility. (Source: FDA Import Alert 89-04, June 24, 2025.) The legal argument is that Olympus — not the hospital — was responsible for providing safe cleaning instructions. Hospitals reported following the reprocessing instructions provided by Olympus at the relevant time.

Whether those instructions were adequate, and whether they were in fact followed in every case, are contested issues that have been examined in litigation and in 2016 Senate HELP Committee findings. Olympus knew those instructions were inadequate and failed to warn hospitals and patients.

What Is the Olympus BF-Series Class I Recall?

In June 2023, the FDA issued a Class I Recall covering 19 Olympus bronchoscope models, including the BF-1TH190. The official recall classification — Class I — means the FDA determined that use of these devices creates a reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death. The June 2023 recall addresses airway fire and burn risk — a distinct hazard from the infection risk that forms the basis of the litigation.

However, the two risks share the same root cause: the complex internal architecture of Olympus flexible endoscopes, particularly the biopsy and suction channels, which create surfaces that are difficult to access and impossible to fully disinfect under standard high-level disinfection protocols. A 2002 outbreak investigation published in Chest traced post-bronchoscopy Mycobacterium tuberculosis-positive cultures in five patients to a single contaminated bronchoscope with sheath damage; the contamination persisted because manufacturer-required leak testing was not performed (Source: Lee JS et al., Chest. 2002;121(5):1791-1793.

PMID 11888985). A 2003 New England Journal of Medicine outbreak investigation traced a hospital-wide Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreak to a manufacturing defect in flexible bronchoscopes that were subsequently subject to a nationwide recall; 9.4% of patients undergoing bronchoscopy during the outbreak developed respiratory tract or bloodstream infections (Source: Srinivasan A et al., N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):221-227).

Earlier foundational research first documented bronchoscope-mediated tuberculosis transmission in 1983 (Source: Nelson KE et al., Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983;127(1):97-100), establishing a documented chain of bronchoscope reprocessing failures across four decades. For patients who underwent bronchoscopy with an Olympus BF-series scope — particularly between 2015 and the present — the BF-1TH190’s presence on the June 2023 Class I Recall list is directly relevant to the question of whether Olympus knew or should have known that its scope cleaning instructions were inadequate.

The device record shows a manufacturer on notice of systemic contamination problems across its entire flexible endoscope product line.

What Qualifying Injuries May Support a Legal Claim After Bronchoscopy?

Our firm is currently investigating bronchoscopy infection claims that meet all of the following confirmed intake criteria:

• The procedure must have occurred on or after January 1, 2015.
• The procedure must have been performed with an Olympus bronchoscope, upper GI endoscope, or colonoscope.
• A confirmed infection diagnosis is required.
• Inpatient hospitalization for the infection is required. Outpatient treatment with oral antibiotics alone does not qualify.
• IV antibiotic treatment during hospitalization is required.
• The infection and resulting hospitalization must have occurred within 30 days of your scope procedure. Most patients in this litigation developed symptoms within approximately five days.
• You must not have been undergoing dialysis or chemotherapy at the time of your hospitalization.

Bronchoscopy patients are often older adults with underlying respiratory conditions — lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tuberculosis, or other serious diagnoses. The comorbidity exclusions listed above apply strictly: active chemotherapy at the time of the bronchoscopy is an exclusion. However, a prior diagnosis of lung cancer or other respiratory condition, standing alone, does not automatically disqualify a claim.

Contact us to discuss your specific situation. Common infections reported in bronchoscopy infection claims include healthcare-associated pneumonia, bacteremia, sepsis, and infections caused by carbapenem-resistant organisms (CRE). Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) bloodstream infections carry a mortality rate approaching 50%. (Source: CDC MMWR Vital Signs, March 5, 2013.)

What Should I Do If I Developed an Infection After a Bronchoscopy?

If you believe you developed an infection after a bronchoscopy performed with an Olympus scope, take the following steps: Patients whose bronchoscopy infections involved contaminated flexible endoscopes should also review the ERCP infection lawsuit page, which covers the broader Olympus contamination claims including duodenoscopes. Bronchoscopy-related infections involving carbapenem-resistant organisms are covered in detail on the superbug infection after endoscopy page. The flexible endoscopes used in bronchoscopy were made by the same company that was criminally prosecuted for failing to report adverse events — the Olympus criminal history page covers the federal guilty plea and the scope defects at issue.

Improperly reprocessed bronchoscopes can transmit blood-borne pathogens beyond bacteria.

1. Request your complete medical records from the hospital or outpatient facility where the bronchoscopy was performed. Ask specifically for the procedure report and any records identifying the bronchoscope model used. Olympus bronchoscope model numbers begin with BF — for example, BF-1TH190. Confirming the device model is helpful, but the absence of a confirmed model number does not automatically disqualify your claim.
2. Obtain records of your infection diagnosis and hospitalization. Relevant documents include inpatient admission records, discharge summaries, culture and sensitivity reports, and IV antibiotic administration records.
3. Note the date of your bronchoscopy procedure and the date your infection symptoms began. The 30-day window runs from the procedure date. Most confirmed cases developed symptoms within five days of the procedure.
4. Check whether you received a letter from your hospital about your bronchoscopy. Since the October 2025 Olympus Urgent Field Safety Notice, hospitals that used the affected scope models may notify patients who underwent procedures with those devices. If you received such a letter, preserve it.
5. Contact a bronchoscopy infection attorney before your statute of limitations expires. Filing deadlines vary by state and are strictly enforced. Even if you believe your deadline may have passed, contact us before assuming you have no options. Depending on the circumstances of your case and how a potential global resolution is structured, there may still be options worth exploring with an attorney.

Marin & Murphy Law Firm is investigating Olympus scope infection claims for patients in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and nationwide. Contact us at (888) 348-2735. The consultation is free and creates no obligation.

Frequently Asked Questions: Bronchoscopy Infection Lawsuit

Matthew T. Marin, J.D. — Admitted in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts

Stefanie A. Murphy, J.D. — Admitted in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts

Attorney Advertising. Marin & Murphy Law Firm. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney Advertising. This page is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship — that relationship is formed only by a signed written agreement. The attorneys of Marin & Murphy Law Firm are licensed in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. We evaluate potential claims nationwide; for matters arising in states where our attorneys are not admitted, we associate with or refer to locally licensed co-counsel and do not ourselves practice law in those jurisdictions.

Submitting the contact form or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Representation is offered on a contingent-fee basis: no fee unless there is a recovery, though a client may be responsible for case costs and expenses. The statute of limitations may sharply limit the time to file a claim. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and no outcome is guaranteed. Responsible attorney: Matthew T.

Marin, Marin & Murphy Law Firm (Rhode Island).