SoClean Machine Lawsuits Centralized For Pretrial Proceedings Before Same Judge Presiding Over Philips CPAP MDL
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has ordered that all SoClean machine lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system over problems caused by the ozone-based CPAP sanitizing device will be centralized before the same judge handling all pretrial proceedings in thousands of Philips CPAP recall lawsuits.
There are currently at least 11 class action lawsuits against SoClean filed in different U.S. District Courts, each raising similar claims that the CPAP machine cleaners release dangerous levels of ozone, which can lead to coughing, nasal irritation, headaches, asthma attacks and other respiratory problems.
SoClean devices are intended to sterilize and deodorize CPAP breathing machines, which are used by individuals with sleep apnea. However, the lawsuits note that to be effective at sanitizing the devices using ozone, SoClean devices must emit levels of gas that are higher than can be safely tolerated by humans or animals.
Given that millions of these devices were sold throughout the U.S., the number of lawsuits over the SoClean CPAP sanitizing problems is expected to continue to rise in the coming months and years.
SoClean CPAP Machine Lawsuits
Did you or a loved one experienced problems from SoClean used to sanitize a recalled Philips CPAP machine?
In October, plaintiffs filed a motion to centralize the SoClean machine lawsuits before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to help avoid duplicative discovery, prevent contradictory rulings from different judges, and serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses and courts.
On January 27, the JPML heard oral arguments over the request, and issued a transfer order (PDF) on February 2, ordering the cases transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where they will be overseen during pretrial proceedings by District Judge Joy Flowers Conti.
Judge Conti has also been assigned to oversee the multidistrict litigation (MDL) established for thousands of Philips CPAP machine lawsuits, which allege that a defective sound abatement foam used in millions of breathing devices deteriorates and releases toxic chemicals and particles directly into the air pathways. These problems have been linked to reports of cancer, lung damage and other respiratory injuries experienced by individuals who used the recalled Philips CPAP machines every night for treatment of their sleep apnea.
Learn More About Philips CPAP Recall lawsuits
Millions of recalled Philips DreamStation, CPAP, BiPAP and ventilator machines may release toxic foam particles and chemicals into the air pathway.
At the time of the recall, Philips suggested that use of SoClean and other similar CPAP sanitizing devices involving ozone and UV light may exacerbate the foam’s degradation. However, in October 2021, SoClean sued Philips, arguing that it was attempting to use the ozone cleaning machine as a scape goat for what it called a “glaring design flaw” that placed a defective sound abatement foam directly in the machine’s air pathways.
Given common questions of fact and law involved in the litigation against Philips and SoClean, Philips urged the U.S. JPML to transfer the SoClean cases to the MDL already established for the recalled Philips CPAP machines, arguing that the SoClean and Philips litigations will both involve discovery related to the causes and effects of the foam breaking down, indicating that many of the same witnesses and evidence will be involved in the proceedings. However, both plaintiffs and SoClean opposed the request, arguing that the primary issues in the SoClean lawsuits related to the safety of the CPAP sanitizing devices and health risks caused by ozone exposure.
“[W]e conclude that centralization of the SoClean actions in the Western District of Pennsylvania before Judge Joy Flowers Conti will allow for coordination the [the Philips CPAP MDL], as well as separate pretrial proceedings concerning the SoClean actions,” according to the order. “Judge Conti, who presides over [the Philips CPAP MDL], is uniquely situated to preside over the overlapping claims in the SoClean MDL. She is, of course, free to structure each MDL as she deems fit, and to establish separate tracks for discovery and other pretrial proceedings as appropriate. We are confident that she will steer this matter on a prudent course.”
KimberlyNovember 21, 2022 at 10:32 am
My father and I both bought a So Clean and would like to know how to get our money back at least.
FrankNovember 19, 2022 at 4:17 pm
I also would like to know what are the actions that should be taken against so clean! These machines were not cheap and now we find out they were doing real harm to us!! So clean at minimum owes us all a full refund! My Phillips was a recalled machine both companies owe us all monitory compensation at minimum! Not to ment I have severe sleep disorders and I just got my new machine after almost 16 [Show More]I also would like to know what are the actions that should be taken against so clean! These machines were not cheap and now we find out they were doing real harm to us!! So clean at minimum owes us all a full refund! My Phillips was a recalled machine both companies owe us all monitory compensation at minimum! Not to ment I have severe sleep disorders and I just got my new machine after almost 16 months without one due to there incompetence. Does anyone know if so clean is taking them back!!??
PatrickFebruary 5, 2022 at 1:16 pm
I would like to know what will be done about the soclean cleaning machines that were purchased. Will the buyers be given anything for the purchase of the device.
"*" indicates required fields
More Top Stories
An Exactech Logic knee lawsuit filed by a New York woman indicates her tibial insert failed, only to be replaced with another defective insert that was later recalled.
A uterine cancer lawsuit filed against L'Oreal claims years of exposure its hair straightener chemicals led to the cancer diagnosis.
A group of plaintiffs have asked a federal judge to lift a stay on more than a dozen wave 1 cases, which they say are not affected by 3M's liability arguments.