Bruto Da Costa v. Olympus — TJF-Q190V Duodenoscope VRE Lawsuit

Super Lawyers® 2014–2024(888) 348-2735

Olympus Scope — Infection Litigation

The Olympus Scope Infection Litigation, Explained

Olympus pleaded guilty in federal court to failing to report scope infections — $85 million in penalties, 250+ patients affected. Here is what is publicly known.

ACTIVE LITIGATION. Most recent filing: June 2026 · deadlines vary by state — some as short as one year.

Marin & Murphy is not licensed in Washington; details below.

Stefanie A. Murphy & Matthew T. Marin

Partners

Super Lawyers® honorees · members of the American Association for Justice · concentrating in personal injury and mass-tort litigation.

Whether any individual has a claim depends on their medical records and the law of their state. The information below covers the litigation itself.

Bruto Da Costa v. Olympus: A 2026 Washington Duodenoscope Lawsuit

In Bruto Da Costa v. Olympus America Inc., et al., No. 2:26-cv-01977 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington), filed June 5, 2026, the personal representative of a Seattle-area man’s estate alleges that he contracted a fatal antibiotic-resistant infection from an Olympus TJF-Q190V duodenoscope during a 2023 endoscopic procedure. The summary below is drawn from the publicly filed complaint. The allegations are unproven, and the case was brought by other counsel (Keller Rohrback LLP and Levin Papantonio).

What the complaint alleges

According to the complaint, the decedent underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on June 12, 2023 at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle, performed with an Olympus TJF-Q190V duodenoscope. Within days, blood cultures revealed vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). The complaint alleges the infection could not be eradicated and that he died on June 28, 2023 of organ failure and septic shock attributed to the VRE.

The complaint alleges that the device’s complex tip and long, narrow internal channels make adequate cleaning “nearly impossible”; that Olympus’s reprocessing instructions are inadequate even when followed exactly; and that repeated use and reprocessing cause cracked lenses, degraded channel linings, and degraded adhesives that allow bacteria to hide from chemical disinfectants. It further alleges that Olympus “actively discouraged” the use of borescope monitoring that could detect such internal damage, and that as of July 2025 the company still directed providers to its instructions for use rather than endorsing additional monitoring such as adenosine triphosphate testing, microbial culturing, or borescope inspection.

The complaint also alleges the device reached the market through the FDA’s 510(k) clearance pathway, which it characterizes as not a determination of safety and effectiveness.

The legal claims

The complaint asserts claims under the Washington Product Liability Act for design defect, failure to warn, and manufacturing defect, together with negligence, gross negligence, breach of implied and express warranty, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, wrongful death, and loss of consortium, and it requests punitive damages. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and damages in excess of $75,000.

How this case fits the broader Olympus scope litigation

This filing reflects two newer threads in the duodenoscope litigation. First, it centers on the Olympus TJF-Q190V — a later-generation model than the TJF-Q180V tied to the early CRE outbreaks and the company’s 2018 federal misbranding plea. Second, it involves vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), a different organism than the carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and E. coli documented in the 2014–2015 hospital outbreaks.

Like the other current Olympus scope cases, it is proceeding as an individual lawsuit; as of August 2026 there is no multidistrict litigation (MDL) or class action. For background, see our Olympus duodenoscope infection lawsuit overview and the Virginia Mason and UCLA outbreak pages.

Criteria for this litigation

Qualifying infection types include:

• Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
• NDM-1-producing E. coli
• ESBL-producing organisms
• Klebsiella pneumoniae
• Pseudomonas aeruginosa
• VRE
• MRSA
• Sepsis (with hospitalization + IV antibiotics within 30 days)
• other multidrug-resistant or healthcare-associated bloodstream infection confirmed by culture

Marin & Murphy Law Firm is licensed to practice in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and is not licensed in Washington. This page is general information about a public court filing, not legal advice, and does not constitute an offer to represent any Washington resident. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results and pending allegations 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.

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.

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

Attorney Advertising. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is licensed only in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and is not licensed to practice law in Washington. This page is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not constitute an offer to represent any Washington resident. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.