New Olympus Lawsuit Alleges a Reusable Scope Spread a Fatal VRE Infection After an ERCP

On June 5, 2026, a wrongful death complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging that a reusable Olympus TJF-Q190V duodenoscope transmitted a fatal vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) infection to a patient during a routine ERCP. It is one of the most specific public accounts yet of a scenario the FDA's own surveillance data has warned about for years — a scope that was cleaned by the book and still carried a drug-resistant organism to the next person on the table.

What the New Complaint Alleges

According to the complaint, reported by Infection Control Today on July 7, 2026, Mark Bruto Da Costa underwent an ERCP — endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography — at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle on June 12, 2023, using an Olympus TJF-Q190V duodenoscope. Four days later, blood cultures drawn during a paracentesis identified gram-positive cocci. His condition declined over the following days with persistent leukocytosis (a high white-blood-cell count that signals active infection), worsening jaundice, and weight loss. He died on June 28, 2023, in what the complaint attributes to VRE-related septic shock and organ failure.

The complaint, brought by Michelle Bruto Da Costa on behalf of her late husband, raises a broad set of product-liability and negligence claims against Olympus: defective design, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence and gross negligence, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, wrongful death, and loss of consortium.

It is important to be precise about what a filing is. A complaint is a set of allegations — the plaintiff's account of what happened, which must still be proven in court. Olympus has not been found liable, and none of these claims has been tested at trial. What makes the filing worth reading is not a result; it is the pattern it fits.

Why the Device Model Matters — the TJF-Q190V

The scope named in the complaint, the Olympus TJF-Q190V, is a fixed-endcap reusable duodenoscope — the same design family as the older TJF-Q180V that has featured in years of FDA safety communications. The defining problem with these scopes is the elevator mechanism at the tip: a small, hinged, recessed channel that guides instruments during a procedure and is exceptionally difficult to clean. Bacteria that lodge in the narrow gap between the elevator and the surrounding wall can survive liquid chemical disinfection, because duodenoscopes cannot be sterilized with the high heat used on ordinary surgical tools without destroying their fiber-optic components.

If your own procedure records name a TJF-Q180V or TJF-Q190V, that identification matters. We walk through how to tell the two apart, and how to find the model number in your records, in our guide on identifying which defective Olympus duodenoscope was used on you.

What VRE Is, and Why It Turns a Procedure Into a Crisis

Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus is a group of gut bacteria that have become resistant to vancomycin — one of the antibiotics doctors reach for when first-line drugs fail. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies VRE as a serious threat in its Antibiotic Resistance Threats report, and estimates it caused roughly 54,500 infections among hospitalized patients and about 5,400 deaths in a single year (2017 data).

Enterococci most often cause bloodstream, surgical-site, and urinary-tract infections, and most VRE infections occur in hospitals. When the organism reaches the bloodstream, the shrinking list of drugs that still work is exactly what makes the infection so dangerous: treatment is harder, slower, and more likely to lose the race against sepsis. That clinical arc — a routine endoscopy followed within days by a systemic, drug-resistant infection — is the same one we describe in our explainer on post-procedure sepsis after an ERCP.

The Regulatory Record Has Been Moving in One Direction

The June 2026 complaint does not arrive in a vacuum. The FDA's position on reusable duodenoscopes has hardened steadily as its postmarket surveillance data came in:

• The agency's postmarket sampling studies found that roughly 4.1% to 6.6% of samples from Olympus and Pentax duodenoscopes tested positive for “high-concern” organisms — the kinds most often associated with disease — even after reprocessing.
• After that data landed, the FDA removed its earlier statement that the risk of infection from inadequate reprocessing was “relatively low.” That deletion was not cosmetic; it reflected a documented, higher-than-expected contamination rate.
• The FDA has pressed hospitals and manufacturers to transition away from fixed-endcap reusable duodenoscopes toward disposable-component and fully single-use designs, and manufacturers have been moving fixed-endcap models off the market.

In other words, a safer alternative design was identified and recommended by the regulator years before many of these procedures took place. Why that recommendation matters so much in a product-liability case — the legal significance of a “feasible safer alternative” — is the subject of our recent post on single-use duodenoscopes and the safer design the FDA recommended. This is also not Olympus's first regulatory reckoning: in 2018, Olympus Medical Systems Corp. pleaded guilty to failing to file required adverse-event reports tied to scope infections — a criminal admission that the record of harm was not fully reported when it should have been.

A Trial Lawyer's Read on Why This Filing Is Significant

“What stands out in a case like this is how tight the timeline is,” says Alex Alvarez, Managing Partner of The Alvarez Law Firm and a Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer. “A named scope model, a documented procedure date, blood cultures within days, and a specific organism — that is the kind of chain that lets you connect a device to an outcome rather than argue in the abstract. It's the difference between ‘infections happen’ and ‘this device, on this date, in this patient.’”

The medical documentation is where those cases are won or lost. “Leukocytosis, rising bilirubin, positive blood cultures with speciation to VRE — those are objective entries in the chart, not anyone's opinion after the fact,” notes Herb Borroto, M.D., J.D., the firm's Medical-Legal Expert, who holds both a medical degree and a law degree. “When we review records in a suspected scope-infection case, we are looking for exactly that sequence: a clean-enough baseline, an instrumented procedure, and then a drug-resistant organism appearing on a timeline consistent with the device. The reprocessing and culture logs for that specific scope are just as important as the patient's chart.”

What This Means If You or a Family Member Was Infected After a Scope Procedure

The Washington complaint describes one family's experience, but the underlying facts — a reusable duodenoscope, a drug-resistant infection days after an endoscopy — are not unique to Seattle. If you had an ERCP, upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, or bronchoscopy at any U.S. hospital and then developed a serious infection, the model of scope used on you and the hospital's cleaning records for it are worth identifying now.

Warning signs that a post-procedure infection deserves a closer look:

• Fever, chills, or worsening illness in the days to weeks after an endoscopic procedure
• Blood cultures or a diagnosis naming a drug-resistant organism — VRE, CRE, MRSA, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa
• Sepsis, septic shock, or organ failure following what was supposed to be a routine procedure
• Extended or repeated hospitalization, or an ICU admission, after an endoscopy
• A family member who died from an infection that appeared shortly after a scope procedure

When a family member dies, the right to bring a wrongful death case is a separate legal question from the infection itself — with its own rules about who can file and how long they have. We cover that in detail in our guide on how families bring a scope-infection wrongful death case.

We represent patients nationwide. Filing deadlines vary by state, and they do not pause while new cases are filed or new FDA data accumulates. If you have questions about your situation, now is the right time to ask them.

Free case review. No Fees Unless We Recover Money for You.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is VRE, and why is a VRE infection so serious?

VRE stands for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus — a group of gut bacteria that have become resistant to vancomycin, one of the antibiotics doctors rely on when other drugs fail. The CDC classifies VRE as a serious threat in its Antibiotic Resistance Threats report and estimates it caused roughly 54,500 infections and 5,400 deaths among hospitalized U.S. patients in a single year. When VRE enters the bloodstream, it is difficult to treat and can progress to sepsis and organ failure.

Does a filed lawsuit mean Olympus has been found responsible?

No. A complaint is a set of allegations that the person filing must still prove in court. The June 2026 Washington complaint states what the family claims happened; Olympus has not been found liable, and the allegations have not been tested at trial. Reporting on a filed complaint is not a prediction of any outcome.

How do I find out which duodenoscope model was used in my procedure?

The scope brand and model number are recorded in the hospital's procedure and reprocessing logs. Under the HIPAA right of access, you can request your complete medical records, including the endoscopy report and device documentation. If your records name an Olympus TJF-Q180V or TJF-Q190V, that is the same family of fixed-endcap reusable duodenoscopes at the center of the litigation.

Sources

• Infection Control Today — Martonicz, T.W. “Can Reusable Duodenoscopes Still Transmit Infections? New Olympus Lawsuit Alleges Fatal VRE Case,” July 7, 2026. infectioncontroltoday.com
• U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — “Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) Basics” and 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report (VRE classified a serious threat; ~54,500 infections and 5,400 deaths, 2017). cdc.gov
• U.S. Food & Drug Administration — “Infections Associated with Reprocessed Duodenoscopes” and postmarket surveillance sampling results (4.1%–6.6% high-concern contamination; recommendation to transition to disposable-component and single-use designs). fda.gov
• MedTech Dive — “After seeing reprocessed duodenoscope contamination data, FDA pushes for switch to disposable.” medtechdive.com
• U.S. Department of Justice — “Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, Former Senior Executive Plead Guilty to Distributing Endoscopes After Failing to File FDA-Required Adverse Event Reports of Serious Infections,” December 2018. justice.gov