SoClean Ozone Cleaning Devices Damaged Philips CPAP Machines, Class Action Lawsuit Claims
A class action lawsuit claims SoClean ozone cleaning devices worsened problems with Philips CPAP machines, which have been recalled due to a risk that the sound abatement foam may degrade and release toxic particles and chemicals directly into the device’s air pathways.
CPAP machines are used by individuals suffering from sleep apnea, to help keep airways open and prevent lapses in breathing that can be dangerous. While SoClean sells a CPAP cleaning devices that uses ozone to sanitize and kill germs inside the machines, a growing number of lawsuits now allege that SoClean uses unsafe levels of ozone, which may pose potential health risks and other problems.
In a complaint (PDF) filed earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, plaintiffs Leonard Bradley and Chinedu Ekweozoh claim that the SoClean ozone cleaning process damages recalled Philips CPAP machines, causing the PE-PUR sound abatement foam to degrade even quicker during regular use.
As a result, the lawsuit claims SoClean users were exposed to more toxic gases released by the degrading foam than other users of the Philips breathing machines, on top of the ozone emitted by the SoClean devices themselves.
The plaintiffs seek class action status for all those who bought SoClean ozone cleaning devices and used them with recalled CPAP machines, joining a growing number of lawsuits now being filed directly against Philips by other consumers.
The class action lawsuit calls for plaintiffs to recover damages both for the cost of their SoClean devices, which they say they would not have purchased if they had known they could damage the CPAP machines they were designed to clean, and the cost of damage to their Philips CPAP devices.
“Each of the Plaintiffs used SoClean Devices to clean their Philips Devices. If Plaintiffs knew that the SoClean Devices would damage their Philips Devices by degrading the PE-PUR Foam, they would have not purchased the SoClean Devices,” the lawsuit states. “Further, the SoClean Devices have caused injury to other property, i.e. the Philips Devices.”
The Philips CPAP machine recall was issued last summer and affected millions of CPAP, BiPAP and ventilator machines sold since 2009, most of which were part of the DreamStation family of products used by individuals suffering from sleep apnea. Due to serious health risks that may be caused by side effects of the CPAP sound abatement foam as it degrades, federal health officials have urged all consumers to stop using the recalled machines for treatment of sleep apnea
At the time of the recall, Philips suggested that use of SoClean and other similar cleaning devices involving ozone and UV light may exacerbate the foam’s degradation. Those claims highlighted an FDA warning about CPAP cleaning products like SoClean issued in February 2021, months before the Philips recall, indicating users were experiencing respiratory complications after using certain ozone gas or ultraviolet (UV) light cleaning devices to disinfect or sanitize machines.
On October 12, SoClean sued Philips, claiming its ozone cleaning devices were being used as a scapegoat for respiratory problems linked to Philips use of toxic sound abatement foam, which it maintains were actually the result of a defective and unreasonably dangerous product design. The SoClean lawsuit alleges Philips is trying to deflect blame to SoClean to cover up what it calls a “glaring design flaw” due to the use of the PE-PUR foam.
Most of the Philips CPAP lawsuits filed by users of the recalled devices only name the manufacturer as a defendant, and those cases are currently centralized in the federal court system before U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Savage in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as part of an MDL or multidistrict litigation.
With an increasing number of SoClean class action lawsuits, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has been asked to establish a separate consolidation for cases involving the ozone cleaning devices, which is expected to be considered during an upcoming hearing scheduled for January 30, 2022.
BasApril 2, 2022 at 4:27 pm
You should have followed the guidelines of the manufacturer and wash it with warm water and soap, Jack. Since you made a mistake, you shouldn't be compensated.
JackFebruary 16, 2022 at 8:00 pm
I have a system one by Phillips that is part of the recall, I have been using a So-clean with it for about 5 years. I just found out today that this is a problem, i wouldn't have purchased the So-clean had I known. My wife has a Respironics C-pap and also uses a So-clean. I feel I have been deceived and feel I should be compensated.
MaryFebruary 3, 2022 at 3:50 pm
My Philips Dream machine for sleep apnea was recalled and I just received a recertified machine. I was using a So Clean machine that I purchased from Apria for around $325.00 as I was told it sanitizes the equipment. I developed a dry annoying cough and a stuffy congested nose making it hard at times for me to use my machine but I never thought it was attributed to So Clean. Philips told me not[Show More]My Philips Dream machine for sleep apnea was recalled and I just received a recertified machine. I was using a So Clean machine that I purchased from Apria for around $325.00 as I was told it sanitizes the equipment. I developed a dry annoying cough and a stuffy congested nose making it hard at times for me to use my machine but I never thought it was attributed to So Clean. Philips told me not to use So Clean with their machine anymore. How can I get a refund? Wasn't So Clean tested for safety and why would a respiratory company recommend it and sell such a product. I just spoke at length with Apria rep who in turn told me I didn't return it within 30 days etc and then tried to have me email a "processing team" for my request for a refund. I refused and a supervisor is supposed to call me!!?
ChadJanuary 29, 2022 at 3:18 am
I just found out about the problems everyone is having with the Soclean 2. I’ve got a Resmed airsence 10. Do I need to stop using the Soclean 2 with it?
SharonJanuary 7, 2022 at 9:57 pm
I have developed lung problems sine starting use of Dreamstation and SoClean 2.
ColleenDecember 21, 2021 at 7:24 pm
I also was recommended to use a So Clean machine. I stopped using it in August 2021 per my sleep doctor! My dream station bipap humidifier stopped working. My doctor also told me that I not to use humidifier! I have a constant sinus infection and cough. I’m still waiting for a replacement bipap machine!
TeraDecember 19, 2021 at 8:17 am
I own a SoClean2 machine that was purchased at recommendation of medical equipment facility where my Dream Station was purchased. My Doctor told me to keep using my Dream Station until I received my replacement because I was waking up gasping for breath when not using. I can’t use the SoClean 2 with new machine because the design does not have a way to hook it up. I want to know if SoCkean was fou[Show More]I own a SoClean2 machine that was purchased at recommendation of medical equipment facility where my Dream Station was purchased. My Doctor told me to keep using my Dream Station until I received my replacement because I was waking up gasping for breath when not using. I can’t use the SoClean 2 with new machine because the design does not have a way to hook it up. I want to know if SoCkean was found by the courts to be at fault for damages to the dream station . I want compensated for my soclean 2. Is that possible?
ANTHONYDecember 17, 2021 at 2:13 pm
i own cpap & SoClean machine, been sick for awhile now, breathing problems, sinus infections, i need help! i need machine to breathe at night! someone please help!
FrankDecember 11, 2021 at 2:50 pm
I own a So Clean machine and stop using it beginning of October. I would like a refund and also join the class action lawsuit. How can I sign up.
"*" indicates required fields
More Top Stories
A new report highlights how many women and families feel left out of Camp Lejeune settlement negotiations after suffering repeated miscarriages they say were caused by miscarriages on the North Carolina military base.
A Bard Infuse-A-Port lawsuit claims a piece of a failed port catheter broke off, causing a woman to suffer a pulmonary embolism which has resulted in fragments of the device remaining in her heart.
A Wegovy gastroparesis lawsuit blames the weight loss drug for a stomach paralysis problems which left a woman with permanent injuries.