Law Technology Today From the ABA Legal Technology Resource Center
Related Articles
In the field of personal injury law, a defective medical device is an often-encountered case of combined medical malpractice and legal negligence.
When one or multiple patients seek treatment for their illness, technology should be the last thing that fails them, especially when that piece of technology not only lacks the necessary efficiency to treat the patient’s malady, but can also result in a potentially fatal or grievous wound – henceforth affecting their general well-being, and potentially that of their loved ones as well.
Therefore, in such an unfortunate case of legal complication, it is important for the individual, or the general population, to be made aware of their rights, options, as well as any and all possible legal avenues of approach. And in the case of defective device claims, there are plenty.
Large-Scale Device Failure
A timely and relevant example of technological failure with disastrous consequences is found in the Chinese-manufactured Coronavirus equipment, which has been shipped to multiple parts of the world earlier in April, during the first wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The EU, a prime global victim of the pandemic, heavily relied on China’s technological help in order to fight the mass number of infections, injuries, and deaths. What they received however, was considered unreliable, criminal, and downright insulting.
The two main medical necessities, surgical facemasks and testing kits, have resulted in a mass failure as soon as they were put to work. Medical teams had no use for a pile of faulty and defunct facemasks, while certain countries facing an excessive number of cases, such as Spain, suffered severe logistic and statistic imbalances, because of 640,000 defective testing kits.
This defining instance of being forced to rely on international social and healthcare aid has raised an alarming wake-up call throughout the EU, with the immediate need for investment in the field of in-union medical product manufacturing branch, for such a socially-threatening situation to be avoided in the near and distant future.
In this particular case, since this was a continent-wide issue, multiple MEPs of the European Union took it upon themselves to report the problem to the higher jurisdictions of the Union, in the fight to provide justice to all the people who have been wronged or legally neglected as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fringe cases like these present an ideal in widespread personal injury law, seeing as legal action and consequential reaction does not have to be taken directly by the individual. However, this is not always the case.
Personal-Scale Device Failure
While a large-scale situation involving defunct medical devices such as the one faced by the EU can and will lead to disastrous consequences, what about when this happens on a smaller, personal scale?
One stark example of recent medical device deficiency is the recall of the GlideScope Core One TouchSmart Cable imposed by the FDA in July 2020. Being categorized as a Class I recall, the product’s faulty relationship with the Core 10 and Core 15 video monitors results in sudden loss of in-body signal, which is directly connected to severe health risks for the patient, such as hypoxia, or even immediate death.
This has resulted in the immediate discontinuation of the product, and its subsequent and concurrent removal from hospitals, clinics, and any other medical institutions that employed the use of the TouchSmart Cable in the process of inspecting the patient’s vocal tract during health investigations. With the FDA’s direct implication in the matter, the legal action that an injured party can take has now been solidified, and rightfully justified and backed by a federal agency of the United States. What exactly comes next?
The advice of this defective medical device lawyer is to always seek legal representation before attempting to solve the situation without the necessary know-how. Since defective devices injuries hold multiple people accountable – the manufacturer themselves; the medical staff who employed the device without doing proper due diligence; even the insurance company who approved the product’s market-wide distribution; it is vital that a legal groundwork of necessary research is first established, and from that a concrete lawsuit strategy can be created.
Conclusion
After having perceived the situation of a defective medical device, both on wide-angled, and personally tailored point of view, we now understand exactly what legal and social representation one or more affected individuals are entitled to receive upon becoming collateral damage to a case of medical and legal misconduct.
No matter how dire the injury you or a loved one have suffered, there will always be an impassioned and empathic attorney readily available to you. Through free legal guidance, they are ready to dedicate their professional and legal knowledgebase with the purpose of fighting for your long-term well-being.
