If you used a recalled Philips machine and later had a diagnosed illness, ask a lawyer about a claim. Past agreements do not tell you whether a new claim fits.
Updated 11 sources
See If You Qualify
Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes
Updated 11 sources
This may apply to you if
The process
You answer a few questions
About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.
A lawyer looks at it
A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.
The firm decides and gets in touch
If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.
Who qualifies
These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.
Joy Flowers Conti · United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · Senior United States District Judge
Finding: The January 16, 2026 opinion grants remand of the Graham case to Kentucky state court. It records past settlements and a January 31, 2025 private injury-settlement registration date; it does not decide personal medical cause or injury compensation.
Graham court opinion, January 16, 2026 (opens in a new tab) · Jan 16, 2026 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Grégoire Justeau · Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Angers University Hospital, France · First-listed author of the original CPAP cancer cohort
Finding: The 4,447-person cohort found no increased overall cancer incidence among Philips users compared with other brands. Its observational design and follow-up cannot exclude every risk or decide an individual cause.
Justeau original CPAP cancer cohort, 2022 (opens in a new tab) · Jul 14, 2022 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Pays de la Loire Sleep Cohort Study Group; Angers University Hospital, France · European Respiratory Journal · 2022
Read the source: Cancer risk in adherent users of polyurethane foam-containing CPAP devices for sleep apnoea (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Food and Drug Administration · 2024
Read the source: FDA review of Philips foam testing; not a patient outcome study (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Not covered by this case
Ask how a share of money recovered would be calculated and what happens if the case loses.
Source: ABA Model Rule 1.5: fees · as of Oct 3, 2026
Some costs may remain payable without a recovery. Request the firm’s terms for this claim.
Source: ABA: fees paid from a successful claim · as of Oct 3, 2026
Covered providers may charge reasonable copying costs, but not a search fee for your own records.
Source: HHS: Your Medical Records · as of Oct 3, 2026
List each machine, dates of use, repair or replacement, diagnosis and care records.
Source: FDA recalled Philips device patient guidance · as of Oct 3, 2026
Ask whether it will review a new claim, past settlement or both. An inquiry does not file a lawsuit.
Source: Federal courts: civil cases · as of Oct 3, 2026
Ask what you could owe with or without a recovery, and keep the written terms.
Source: ABA Model Rule 1.5: fees · as of Oct 3, 2026
If you used a recalled Philips breathing machine and later had a diagnosed illness, ask a lawyer about a claim. Bring the device name and care records. The recall alone does not prove that the machine caused your illness. [6] [8] [9]
The June 2021 recall covered certain Philips machines, rather than every machine used for sleep care. Check the model and serial number with the equipment supplier. Do not guess from the Philips name or the year you bought it. Ask the supplier to help identify the exact device if the label is hard to read. [6]
Write down the dates you used each machine, any replacement, and when your symptoms or diagnosis began. Include the cleaning products you used. Keep old letters and device records even if you no longer have the machine. Ask a lawyer which injury, use history and legal rules it can assess. This page does not set a firm’s acceptance rules.
A January 16, 2026 court opinion records past Philips settlements and a closed private-injury registration date. It also sends one unsettled case back to a Kentucky state court. Someone new needs a lawyer to check the current route, rather than assume the old program is open. [9]
Judge Joy Flowers Conti issued that opinion in the federal court in western Pennsylvania. The federal group is numbered 3014. The opinion separates settlements for device-related financial loss and medical monitoring from a private program for certain injuries. Those programs do not have the same purpose or necessarily the same rules. [9]
The January opinion concerns where one case should be heard. It does not decide whether that patient’s device caused cancer, and it is not a new offer to everyone who used a machine. Ask for a current explanation of any route a lawyer proposes. No later court outcome or program opening is stated in this guide. [9]
Past Philips settlements exist, but the January opinion does not state what you personally will receive. An old fund total is not your payment. Ask which program or claim applies and what written terms control it. [9]
A payment for a device-related financial loss is different from resolving an injury claim. The January record discusses those separately. Do not treat a replacement machine, a registration email or a headline about a fund as proof that you have an injury award. Bring any earlier forms or agreement so the lawyer can explain what you signed. [9]
If you already took part in a settlement, ask your own lawyer about your individual status and any notice you received. The January opinion reported an expectation about payments in early 2026. An expectation in that dated record does not confirm that your payment arrived. This guide gives no injury price list, estimated range or promised payment date. [9]
Ask the receiving firm for its written fee and cost terms for a Philips claim. A share of money recovered and case expenses can be separate. Check what you could owe if the claim brings no money. [3] [5]
Ask how the firm would calculate its share and handle record, filing or expert costs. The ABA consumer fee guide warns that some costs may remain payable without a recovery. The ABA model rule calls for written terms when a fee depends on the result. These sources do not establish this site’s partner prices or prove which rule your state uses. [3] [5]
For copies of your own care records, ask the provider for the allowed copying or mailing charge. HHS says covered providers may charge reasonable copying costs, but not a search fee. Ask the lawyer which records it wants before paying for files from every provider. Keep any written price and ask about charges you do not understand. [1]
The private injury-settlement registration deadline recorded by the court was January 31, 2025. That date is not a ruling that you have no possible claim. Ask a lawyer to check your own dates, applicable law and any program rules. The separate Extraordinary Injury Fund application deadline was August 1, 2025. As of October 6, 2026, that program date has passed; it does not decide every person’s right to sue. [9] [4]
Bring the first and last dates of use, the diagnosis date and any earlier claim or agreement. Say where you lived and where care took place. Ask which facts start the relevant time limit. Do not assume it began when you read a recall notice or when someone mentioned a lawsuit. A personal deadline needs an individual legal check. [4]
If you already registered or hired a lawyer, bring the confirmation and any later requests for records. Ask that lawyer about tasks that still apply to you. Keep program dates separate from deadlines to sue. A past registration cutoff does not establish a new open window, and this page does not calculate an exception or extension. [9] [4]
Talk to your doctor about the machine and your current care plan. FDA guidance says stopping a recalled device can pose greater risk for some patients than continuing it. Let the doctor help weigh your own risks and options. [6]
Note the model, serial number and any repair or replacement history. Keep the diagnosis and treatment reports you have. If you used more than one machine, list each separately rather than combining the dates. Ask the equipment supplier about the actual recall notice for that device, and ask the lawyer which records matter for a legal check. [6]
For a CPAP or similar bi-level machine, FDA guidance says not to add a filter or try to remove the foam. It also says not to use ozone or ultraviolet light cleaners. Do not try to fix a concern by changing the machine yourself. Ask your care team and supplier to explain care and cleaning for your exact model. [6]
If you are helping someone else, ask what help they want before sending medical files. HHS record-access rights belong to the patient or an authorized personal representative, with limits. Ask the provider what permission is needed. A family relationship alone is not a reason to assume you can obtain and share every record. [1]
Start by organizing the machine and care history, then ask a firm what it can assess. Read any proposed agreement before you sign. A website inquiry alone does not file a lawsuit. [2]
For the first step, put the known dates and device details in one place. Mark anything uncertain instead of guessing. For the second, ask whether the lawyer is checking a new claim, a prior settlement or both. For the third, request an explanation of fees, expenses and your responsibilities. Ask what happens next if the firm needs more information.
If another lawyer already handles your Philips claim, discuss the new contact with that lawyer before signing again. Ask who will receive your information and how to keep a copy of the terms. No court order establishes a website’s privacy promise or response time. This page does not promise that a particular firm will accept your case.
FDA identifies potential risks from foam in certain recalled machines, but that is not proof of your cancer’s cause. A French study found no increased overall cancer rate among its Philips users. Ask your doctor to explain your own diagnosis and the limits of that evidence. [6] [8]
The original study followed 4,447 people using sleep machines, including 1,648 using Philips devices. The middle follow-up time was 7.2 years. It compared patients who used Philips machines with patients using other brands. It did not assign machines at random. The study’s design cannot settle cause or exclude every cancer risk. [8]
The authors noted that the sample size and follow-up might miss links with some cancer types. Other factors that were not measured could also affect the result. The finding does not cancel the FDA recall or prove all models safe. It also does not show that a diagnosed illness was caused by foam. [8] [6]
The FDA testing summary says the agency found Philips’ shared testing insufficient to fully evaluate risk in October 2023. It requested more testing and maintained its potential-risk advice. That agency review is different from a study comparing cancer rates. Neither a manufacturer’s reassuring conclusion nor a filed allegation decides your individual cause. [7] [8] [9]
The questions below focus on the Philips recall, care, records and the past settlement date. Use them to prepare for the equipment supplier, care team and lawyer. They do not decide which route remains available to you.
Read the original study’s methods and limits alongside the FDA guidance. The court opinion provides dated legal history and a ruling about one case. Citing the judge or researchers does not mean they reviewed this page.
Philips CPAP, BiPAP, and ventilator devices manufactured between 2009 and 2021 contained a polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam block used for sound abatement. Under normal use conditions — and especially under heat, humidity, and ozone exposure — this foam breaks down and releases volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter directly into the breathing pathway. FDA testing of recalled devices identified over 200 chemical compounds, including known and suspected human carcinogens: toluene diisocyanate (TDI), dimethyl diformamide (DMFA), diethylene glycol, and N,N-dimethylacetamide. Because patients breathe through these devices for 6–8 hours every night, cumulative carcinogen exposure is direct, prolonged, and repetitive — making it a textbook toxic exposure pathway.
The PE-PUR foam degrades through hydrolysis and oxidation, releasing volatile organic compounds including toluene diisocyanate (TDI), diethylene glycol, dimethyl diformamide (DMFA), and N,N-dimethylacetamide. FDA testing identified over 200 distinct chemical compounds in air samples drawn through recalled devices. TDI is classified as a Group 2B possible human carcinogen by IARC, and DMFA is associated with liver toxicity and cancer. These chemicals are inhaled directly into the upper respiratory tract, pharynx, and lungs during every sleep session.
As the PE-PUR foam physically breaks down, it sheds black or discolored particulate matter — visible foam debris — that enters the device air stream. These particles are inhaled deep into the airway, where they can deposit in lung tissue and trigger chronic inflammatory responses. Sustained airway inflammation is a well-established precursor to carcinogenesis, particularly in the nasopharynx, oropharynx, and lower respiratory tract. Multiple plaintiffs and FDA adverse event reports document visible black particles in masks and tubing.
The anatomical pathway of CPAP use means carcinogenic VOCs and particulates make first contact with the nasal passages, nasopharynx, oropharynx, and trachea before reaching the lungs. This direct mucosal exposure pathway explains the elevated prevalence of nasopharyngeal cancer, throat cancer, and oropharyngeal cancer in MDL 3014 plaintiffs. The nasopharyngeal mucosa is highly vascularized and absorbs chemical exposures efficiently, providing a route for systemic distribution to the kidneys, liver, and bladder — accounting for the full spectrum of cancers alleged in the litigation.
CPAP therapy is prescribed for chronic conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), meaning patients use their devices every night, typically for 6–8 hours per session, for years or decades. This creates an extraordinarily high cumulative carcinogen dose: a patient using a recalled device for five years received approximately 10,000–15,000 hours of direct carcinogen inhalation exposure. This duration and consistency of exposure distinguishes CPAP cancer claims from incidental or episodic exposures and supports both general and specific causation arguments in litigation.
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been reported in Philips CPAP MDL plaintiffs. The carcinogenic mechanism involves systemic absorption of VOCs released by degraded PE-PUR foam through the respiratory mucosa and pulmonary circulation, with subsequent metabolic processing in the kidneys and liver. Carcinogens including dimethylacetamide (DMAC) and diethylene glycol are excreted or metabolized by these organs, causing direct nephrotoxic and hepatotoxic carcinogenic effects.
Lung cancer in Philips CPAP litigation refers to primary bronchogenic carcinoma — most commonly adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma — arising in users of recalled Philips devices who inhaled PE-PUR foam degradation byproducts over prolonged periods. The carcinogens released, including TDI (a known respiratory carcinogen), dimethylformamide, and particulate foam fragments, cause direct pulmonary tissue damage and mutagenesis.
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a malignant tumor arising from the epithelial cells of the nasopharynx — the upper part of the throat behind the nose. In the context of Philips CPAP litigation, NPC is the most prevalent cancer type among MDL plaintiffs, attributable to direct inhalation of PE-PUR foam degradation byproducts including toluene diisocyanate (TDI) and volatile organic compounds into the nasopharyngeal mucosa during device use.
Many Philips CPAP recall plaintiffs did not develop cancer but experienced significant non-malignant health effects from chronic inhalation of PE-PUR foam degradation byproducts. These include mucosal irritation, sinusitis, chemical toxicity syndromes, worsened obstructive lung disease, and systemic inflammatory responses. While lower in settlement value than cancer claims, documented non-cancer injuries from recalled device use are viable personal injury claims.
Patients who used a recalled Philips CPAP or BiPAP device for five or more years represent the highest-risk exposure profile. With 6–8 hours of use per night, a five-year user accumulated 10,000–15,000+ hours of direct carcinogen inhalation through degraded PE-PUR foam. This duration of exposure is most consistent with cancer latency periods for nasopharyngeal, lung, kidney, and liver cancers. Long-term users whose cancer diagnosis came years after device use began — consistent with known latency for carcinogen-induced malignancies — have the strongest general and specific causation arguments in MDL 3014. Devices used from the System One (legacy) line are particularly relevant, as many long-term users were on these platforms for the full period of maximum foam degradation.
Patients who used ozone-based CPAP cleaning devices — particularly SoClean, which was the market leader — in conjunction with their recalled Philips CPAP represent a high-risk exposure subgroup. FDA testing confirmed that ozone dramatically accelerates PE-PUR foam oxidative degradation, causing substantially higher rates of VOC off-gassing and particulate generation compared to devices cleaned by other methods. Ozone cleaners were marketed aggressively to CPAP users as a convenient, waterless sanitizing solution, and millions of users adopted them before the recall. SoClean is a named defendant in parallel litigation and has faced cross-claims from Philips. CPAP users who combined long-term device use with ozone cleaning have the most severe exposure profiles in the MDL.
The majority of CPAP users attach a heated humidifier to their device to reduce airway dryness — a standard accessory promoted by Philips and prescribed by sleep medicine physicians. FDA testing and independent analysis confirmed that heat and humidity significantly accelerate PE-PUR foam hydrolysis, the degradation mechanism that releases VOCs and particulates. Patients who used Philips' integrated or add-on heated humidifier modules during device operation faced higher chemical release rates compared to patients who used devices without humidification. This is particularly important because humidifier use is so common as to be considered standard CPAP practice — meaning the elevated exposure applies to the majority of the recalled device user population, not a small subset.
Patients who used recalled Philips BiPAP devices or mechanical ventilators (including the Trilogy 100, Trilogy 200, and A-Series BiPAP lines) faced a distinct and severe exposure profile. BiPAP devices deliver higher flow rates and pressures than standard CPAP units, increasing the volume of air drawn through the PE-PUR foam pathway per minute and thereby increasing the rate of carcinogen inhalation. Ventilator-dependent patients — many with serious underlying conditions such as ALS, COPD, or spinal cord injury — were advised by Philips and the FDA to continue using recalled ventilators even after the recall, because the risk of stopping life-sustaining therapy exceeded the cancer risk. These patients received continued high-dose exposure after the recall was announced with no ability to stop use, creating a distinct post-recall injury period with clear corporate knowledge of harm.
The CPAP recall litigation is not simply a product defect case — it is a case about corporate concealment. Philips Respironics received internal complaints about PE-PUR foam degradation as early as 2015. Rather than investigating and recalling devices, the company allowed millions of patients to continue breathing carcinogenic VOCs every night for six additional years. Even after Australian regulators compelled action in April 2021, Philips delayed U.S. notification by months. When the recall came, replacement devices initially provided to patients were found to contain the same defective foam — extending harm even for those who sought remediation. The pattern of knowing concealment, delayed action, and inadequate remediation forms the foundation of plaintiffs' punitive damages claims in MDL 3014.
The regulatory timeline of the Philips CPAP recall reveals a years-long failure to protect patients. Despite internal complaints about PE-PUR foam degradation dating to 2015, Philips did not initiate a recall until June 2021 — and only after Australian regulators forced its hand months earlier. The FDA classified the recall as Class I (highest severity), issued a formal Warning Letter for inadequate patient notification, and subsequently opened a criminal investigation. On April 9, 2024, a federal district court entered a consent decree against Philips Respironics.
CPAP cancer lawsuits are products liability/personal injury claims with state-specific statutes of limitations. The discovery rule — where the clock starts when you knew or reasonably should have known your cancer was linked to CPAP foam — is critical for cancer latency cases.
Your state
Deadlines vary by state and by case. A lawyer can confirm yours.
Find the model and serial number and ask the equipment supplier to compare them with the actual recall. The June 2021 notice concerns certain machines, rather than every Philips product. Ask for help if the label is unclear.
Source: FDA recalled Philips device patient guidance · as of Oct 7, 2026
No. The January 2026 opinion records past settlements but does not state your individual payment. Ask your own lawyer which program, written terms and deductions apply to you.
Source: Graham remand opinion in Philips CPAP MDL, January 16, 2026 · as of Oct 7, 2026
It depends. The January 2026 Graham opinion describes private settlements for certain qualifying personal-injury claims, separate from class settlements. It does not prove your eligibility or that registration is open, so ask a lawyer to review your diagnosis and the applicable terms.
Source: Graham remand opinion in Philips CPAP MDL, January 16, 2026 · as of Oct 7, 2026
No. The court records that date for private injury-settlement registration. It does not set every person’s deadline to sue. Ask a lawyer to check your use, diagnosis and claim history under the relevant law.
Source: Graham remand opinion in Philips CPAP MDL, January 16, 2026 · as of Oct 7, 2026
The opinion grants remand, meaning the Graham case is to return to a Kentucky state court. It does not decide that the machine caused cancer or award a personal injury payment. Ask a lawyer how the current court rules affect your own route.
Source: Graham remand opinion in Philips CPAP MDL, January 16, 2026 · as of Oct 7, 2026
FDA guidance says not to use ozone or ultraviolet light cleaners and says ozone may worsen foam breakdown. Tell the care team and lawyer which cleaner you used. This guidance does not establish that a cleaner raises your claim value.
Source: FDA recalled Philips device patient guidance · as of Oct 7, 2026
List the model, serial number, use dates, repair or replacement history and diagnosis. Keep device letters and care records you already have. Ask the lawyer which records it needs before paying for a large set of copies.
Source: HHS: Your Medical Records · as of Oct 7, 2026
No, the device-loss and injury programs were not the same program. The January 2026 Graham opinion distinguishes economic-loss and medical-monitoring class settlements from private settlements for certain personal-injury claims. Ask which route any notice or agreement concerns.
Source: Graham remand opinion in Philips CPAP MDL, January 16, 2026 · as of Oct 7, 2026
Checked against 9 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated
How we make moneyThe review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.
Register your interest