Olympus Duodenoscope Lawsuit in Georgia

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 Georgia; 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.

Georgia and the Olympus Scope Litigation

The Olympus scope litigation involves claims by patients who developed antibiotic-resistant infections after ERCP or biliary procedures performed with Olympus duodenoscopes. Georgia is home to major academic medical centers and high-volume ERCP referral centers — concentrated in metro Atlanta and Augusta — as well as major health systems serving patients from across the southeastern United States. The litigation concerns Olympus Corporation’s reprocessing instructions for its endoscopes — not the conduct of treating hospitals or physicians.

Between 2013 and 2016, the CDC documented duodenoscope-associated CRE outbreaks at hospitals in multiple states. Olympus holds approximately 70–80% of the U.S. endoscope market, and the vast majority of Georgia hospitals performing ERCP, colonoscopy, and bronchoscopy use Olympus devices. Peer-reviewed literature has documented that standard high-level disinfection protocols were insufficient to eliminate contamination from Olympus TJF-Q180V duodenoscopes at facilities nationwide.

Georgia has a 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33), running from the date the right of action accrues.

What Is the Olympus Scope Lawsuit?

The Olympus scope lawsuit is a product liability litigation against Olympus Corporation for providing hospitals with inadequate cleaning and reprocessing instructions for its endoscopes. Product liability claims against Olympus in Georgia are grounded in design defect (the elevator channel in Olympus duodenoscopes cannot be reliably decontaminated by standard HLD, a fact known to Olympus prior to widespread clinical deployment), failure to warn (Olympus did not timely disclose known CRE transmission risks), and negligence (Olympus had a duty to ensure its devices were safe for clinical use but delayed action on post-market surveillance data).

On December 10, 2018, Olympus Medical Systems Corporation pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing misbranded medical devices and paid $85 million in penalties — admitting it failed to report adverse event information from the FDA. (DOJ press release, December 10, 2018; Case No. 2:18-cr-00727-SRC, D.N.J.) See our Olympus criminal history page for the full record of the guilty plea. The October 2025 Urgent Field Safety Notice updated Olympus’s reprocessing instructions for current-generation TJF duodenoscopes and introduced a Visual Inspection Guide recommending 10X magnification.

Olympus reported 2 deaths and 5 serious injuries from infection potentially related to these devices since 2024, while stating it could not determine whether the devices caused the infections. The December 2024 MAJ-891 Class I Recall affected 30,140 units with 120 reported injuries and 1 reported death following procedures in which the MAJ-891 accessory was used with a cystoscope (not a duodenoscope). (FDA Recall Z-0905-2025.) As of June 2026, no MDL has been filed or is currently pending; cases are proceeding as individual lawsuits in federal and state courts.

Why Georgia Patients Are at Risk

Olympus holds approximately 70–80% of the U.S. endoscope market. The vast majority of Georgia hospitals performing ERCP, colonoscopy, and bronchoscopy use Olympus devices. Georgia’s major academic medical centers in Atlanta and Augusta serve patients from across the Southeast and perform high volumes of ERCP and biliary endoscopy annually. Major Georgia facilities where ERCP and biliary procedures are routinely performed at high volume include academic medical centers, Level I trauma centers, and large regional hospitals concentrated in metro Atlanta and Augusta.

These centers collectively perform a substantial share of the state’s ERCP, colonoscopy, and bronchoscopy volume. Given Olympus’s 70–80% share of the U.S. flexible endoscope market, patients treated at these facilities were statistically likely to have undergone procedures using Olympus devices. No specific outbreak is being asserted as to any individual Georgia facility. No specific outbreak data for these institutions is being asserted here — Olympus’s dominant U.S. market share makes these facilities statistically likely users of Olympus devices.

The FDA’s MAUDE adverse event database may contain relevant reports from Georgia facilities.

Criteria for This Litigation

The following criteria define eligibility for this litigation:

• ☐  Procedure date on or after January 1, 2015.
• ☐  Procedure performed with an Olympus bronchoscope, upper GI endoscope, or colonoscope.
• ☐  Confirmed infection diagnosis required.
• ☐  Inpatient hospitalization for the infection required. Outpatient treatment with oral antibiotics alone does not qualify.
• ☐  IV antibiotic treatment during hospitalization required.
• ☐  Infection and hospitalization within 30 days of scope procedure. Most patients in this litigation developed symptoms within approximately five days.
• ☐  Claim within Georgia’s 2-year statute of limitations from the date the right of action accrues (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33).

Note: Wrongful death claims in Georgia must be filed within 2 years of the decedent’s death (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33).

Frequently Asked Questions: Georgia Duodenoscope Lawsuit

Can Georgia patients file an Olympus duodenoscope lawsuit?

Yes — Georgia patients harmed by a contaminated Olympus duodenoscope can file a product liability lawsuit in Georgia state or federal court. Georgia’s statute of limitations is 2 years from the date the right of action accrues under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33.

What is Georgia’s statute of limitations for a duodenoscope case?

Georgia applies a 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33, running from the date the right of action accrues. Georgia also recognizes a discovery rule in certain cases involving latent injuries or fraudulent failure to report. Note: Wrongful death claims in Georgia must be filed within 2 years of the decedent’s death.

What is CRE and why is it so dangerous?

CRE (Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae) are bacteria resistant to carbapenem antibiotics — drugs considered last-resort treatments. When CRE is transmitted via a contaminated duodenoscope, patients often have no warning and few treatment alternatives. Serious CRE infections carry mortality rates approaching 50% in severe cases, and treatment may require prolonged hospitalization and combinations of toxic antibiotics.

What compensation may be available in a Georgia duodenoscope case?

Potential damages in a Georgia product liability or negligence case may include medical expenses, lost wages and future earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and in wrongful death cases, loss of consortium and other economic losses. The value of any specific claim depends on individual facts. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

How do I know if my ERCP involved an Olympus duodenoscope?

Request your procedure records from the hospital, including device identification logs and operative reports. Major Georgia academic centers regularly used Olympus TJF-Q180V duodenoscopes during the period of documented contamination risk (2012–2019).

Is it too late to file if my ERCP was years ago?

It depends on your specific timeline. Georgia’s 2-year statute of limitations runs from the date the right of action accrues. If you were not informed of the contamination risk until years after your procedure, the discovery rule may potentially extend your deadline in limited circumstances. Georgia deadlines are strictly enforced, and the discovery rule applies only in limited circumstances.

A June 2026 Washington wrongful-death filing, Bruto Da Costa v. Olympus (W.D. Wash.), is among the most recent Olympus duodenoscope cases — see the Olympus scope lawsuit overview for details.