People's Justice

California · Olympus ERCP Scope

Olympus ERCP Scope Claims in California

See If You Qualify

Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes

Filing deadline2 years from discovery of duodenoscope-linked infectionCivil Procedure § 335.1

Deadlines vary with the facts of each case. A lawyer can confirm yours.

Updated

01 · Your filing deadline

What is the deadline in California?

California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 provides a 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims including medical device product liability. The discovery rule applies — the clock starts when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the infection and its connection to the contaminated duodenoscope. California has no statute of repose for product liability claims. A lawyer can confirm yours.

2 years from discovery of duodenoscope-linked infection

Source: Civil Procedure § 335.1

Deadlines vary; a lawyer can confirm yours. An older diagnosis or a past filing window does not, by itself, establish whether you have a claim.

Woman on the phone on her sofa, smiling
A lawyer can check which filing rules apply to your circumstances.

02 · Where cases are heard

Where would my case be heard?

California is the epicenter of Olympus duodenoscope litigation. The 2015 UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center CRE outbreak — 7 infected, 3 dead — was the catalytic event that triggered FDA action, congressional investigation, and the wave of nationwide lawsuits. California applies a 2-year statute of limitations under CCP § 335.1 with the discovery rule, and has no statute of repose for product liability, making it one of the most favorable states for late-discovered infection claims.

California duodenoscope cases have been filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The UCLA outbreak cases established key legal precedents for duodenoscope design defect claims. California applies the consumer expectations and risk-utility tests for design defect under Barker v. Lull Engineering. The state's Kelly/Frye standard for expert testimony is generally more permissive than the federal Daubert standard. California's plaintiff-friendly discovery rule and absence of a product liability statute of repose make it a highly favorable venue for infection claims.

How this works nationally

For the overall process and updates, read the Olympus ERCP Scope overview. This page covers the local information available for California.

What happens when I check?

You answer a few short questions about what happened. If you send them, your answers are kept on file. If a participating law firm takes these cases, it may contact you. People's Justice is not a law firm.

Live in California? Read what applies in your state.

Register your interest. If a participating law firm takes these cases, it may contact you.

Register your interest

Sources

  1. Civil Procedure § 335.1