To Get Help Now
Click Here
Today's Date:

Manufacturer Opposes da Vinci Robot Surgery MDL

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

In response to a motion filed last month with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation requesting that all federal lawsuits filed against Intuitive Surgical Inc., over the da Vinci surgical robot be centralized before U.S. District Judge Carlton Wayne Reeves in the Southern District of Mississippi, Intuitive Surgical wrote that it opposed a da Vinci MDL.

Intuitive Surgical wrote “[T]his Panel has admonished that where, like here, only a small number of cases are sought to be coordinated through an MDL proceeding, efficiencies and conveniences can appropriately be achieved through informal coordination between the courts and counsel without the necessity of transferring the actions and establishing the apparatus of a single, centralized MDL proceeding…That view is especially pertinent here, where Intuitive is currently the only defendant in the four actions, plaintiffs’ attorneys’ firms overlap in two of the four actions, and three of the four actions are presently pending in district courts that are geographically close to each other in the Southeastern United States.”

There are currently four da Vinci robot lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts across the country, all alledging that the da Vinci robot caused patients to suffer tear, burns, and other serious internal injuries during surgery. The lawsuit claim that Intuitive Surgical sold the device without ensuring that surgeons were trained how to use it properly, and that the company failed to provide consumers with adequate warnings regarding the serious and potentially life-threatening risks that can occur during a da Vinci robot assisted surgery.

The Panel’s next scheduled hearing is set for July 26, when it is expected that it will rule on whether da Vinci robot lawsuits will be centralized. disclaimer: This article: Manufacturer Opposes da Vinci Robot Surgery MDL was posted on Wednesday, June 6th, 2012 at 8:49 pm at and is filed under Medical Device Lawsuits.

« »

Comments are closed.