[News] RECALL THREAD-- IMPORTANT PHILIPS DREAMSTATION & SYSTEM ONE USERS

[smfkdol9392]

Brief thoughts on the way the COURT CASES will play out and related miscellaneous matters:

1. Phillips will try to get as many CPAP users as possible to give up their right to sue in the future by enticing them to accept a class action settlement in the near term. 
   
2. If a CPAP user doesn’t have an injury today, they can’t sue today. Only people with provable injuries can be compensated. If there are injuries, it seems like the bulk of them might happen well into the future. Unless there are CAT scans of foam in lungs today, and unless the lungs are having trouble breathing today, there’s not much of a case, even if the fear factor is large and long term consequences are unknown. 
   
3. In some states, but not in all states, the ozone issue will come into play. If Phillips tells users beforehand that ozone will negatively affect how the device operates, and will void the warranty, and some users nevertheless apply ozone to the machine, courts in some states will take the position that the ozone users contributed to their own injury and will not be entitled to compensation. It will not matter that CPAP users didn’t understand there was a foam part that could disintegrate with ozone, etc. Again this will apply to some but not all states. Many states will take a middle ground and reduce the award a plaintiff gets, other states will say a plaintiff is entitled to a full award. 
   
4. Phillips will try a few balloon cases to see how juries react to the facts. I can imagine people who try to sue will be divided up into groups. The first group will be people who have a history of smoking and who do not have any evidence of particles in their lungs. The second group will be people who don’t smoke and who do have particles in their lungs. The third group will be ozone users who have particles in their lungs. And so on and so forth, into x amount of groups that the Phillips lawyers are curious about. Plaintiffs who try to sue will have varying degrees of success and varying payouts depending on their situation. Phillips will know exactly where all people stand within a few months of the first few cases.
   
5. Phillips has already stated that it does not see this as being any sort of risk to its business or to its stock price. The long term costs will be negligible as its other business will continue to grow and in the short term it will be a write-off to cover  reputational and machine replacement costs. They also are firm in their stance that this is an issue that only affects a very small number of CPAP users. This is a PR matter for them. 
   
6. Doctors will have a lot more information in the coming months as for what to look for than they do today. As has been mentioned many times before, it will be a long time before anyone will really know how worried anyone should be.
   

[SarcasticDave94]

I still think that when Philips thinks about customers, names like Rotech, Apria, Lincare, etc. come to mind. They're not thinking about Bill, Bob, Mary that uses the DreamStation.

I'm thinking that it's similar to Auto manufacturers and the car dealer network. The dealer buys the Ford Chevy Honda and Toyota from the manufacturer. We buy from the dealer.

This is what I'm thinking Philips Respironics is thinking but not saying when you call to complain about Foam Gate



Here's a tissue for ya

[WakeUpTime]

That certainly is an excellent summary.  Thank you.  

There's one point that I'd highlight:

Brief thoughts on the way the COURT CASES will play out ...

1. ...
   
2. If a CPAP user doesn’t have an injury today, they can’t sue today. Only people with provable injuries can be compensated. If there are injuries, it seems like the bulk of them might happen well into the future. Unless there are CAT scans of foam in lungs today, and unless the lungs are having trouble breathing today, there’s not much of a case, even if the fear factor is large and long term consequences are unknown. 
   
3. ...
   

If I'm not mistaken, there are indeed many judgements where long term funds were set aside for future, not as yet known, defective product user ailments (Asbestos and lung issues, Baby Powder and cervical cancer, etc.)

Secondly, in addition to current health-related harm (and potential future harm), there is another form of compensation that many recalled Philips system users should qualify for:  financial compensation for the immediate re-purchase of a similar PAP system.  Users did not receive an immediate fix/replacement and are required (medically speaking) to continually use a PAP machine.  Getting their recalled machine fixed months later and returned as a second machine has likely cost many users (insurance companies, hospitals, etc.) an additional $1,000-$2,000.


If users are experiencing any ailments that may be related to the inhalation of the defective system foam particles (and their potential cancer-causing chemical compounds), they should request that it be noted in their medical record that they have been a long-term user of the now-recalled defective Philips PAP systems.  Regardless of the above, it may be prudent to ask that it be put in your medical record by any current or future (non-sleep) doctors that you have been a long-term user of a Philips xPAP Model xxxxx, if they don't already know.

At the moment, Philips has protected itself by conducting the most minimal response:  instruct defective product users to immediately stop using the recalled system.  Everything else, such as a service replacement of the defective foam, is scheduled for some time in the future.

[btreger]

I also think that solution, or something similar that included a credit based on machine type and aged depreciation, would have been a good idea for users and the company.  (Several mobile phone manufacturers have used similar programs.)  

Instead, Philips has allocated a mere $170 per user (average) corporate cost for each recalled device user (total €500 Million).  That may be the cost for users to have the replacement foam service done by a Philips-appointed 3rd party service company, including all courier costs, and possibly a DME coordination fee for their time.


I like your idea, very logical. I am curious were you found the average cost number. It sounds a little low to me. 

[WakeUpTime]

I like your idea, very logical. I am curious were you found the average cost number.
It sounds a little low to me.

You're likely very correct; their initial cost estimate is indeed very low.

I just did an simple rough estimate:

500 Million EURO

(Philips current allocation)

divided by

3.5 Million recalled devices

Answer: $170.35 anticipated cost for Philips, per Philips recalled system

[EngineerBoo]

Update on my DME...she's only emailed me back once stating she was going to send my DreamStation serial number to Philips to see if mine is affected. (Of course it is, if it's not a DreamStation 2 it IS...their PA notice said so.)
I just emailed her back...asking if I can buy another device. If she doesn't answer within a day or two I'm going to ask my Primary Care doctor to refer me somewhere else.
VERY rude not to answer your emails when you're a health provide...not too happy with my DME

[glenlyon602]

I am reading the discussion about ozone cleaners with interest, and see both sides of the issue.  But then I was shocked to get an email -- today -- from a large internet CPAP supplier offering a one day sale on a new ozone cleaner!  Their web link has no warning or disclaimer of any kind, even when a 90% market share of CPAP manufacturers specifically recommend against using this class of cleaning product.  Philips, with over 60% of the market, now plainly says that using ozone cleaners exacerbates the cancer risk of their recalled products.

How can a large-scale seller of CPAP equipment now offer a sale without any disclaimer of an ozone cleaner?  Aren't they just making themselves a larger target to be included in the lawsuits that are coming?  From both Philips and the customers?

US tort law allows parties to take a corrective measure contrary to their prior conduct without allowing that to be evidence in a lawsuit about that prior conduct.  Continuing the conduct enjoys no such protection.  Middlemen that step up and give good advice and customer service now, without burying their head in the sand (local DMEs) or recklessly selling equipment online, are doing the right thing.

But I also realize that may be asking for a lot.

[Guilhermedico]

How can a large-scale seller of CPAP equipment now offer a sale without any disclaimer of an ozone cleaner?  Aren't they just making themselves a larger target to be included in the lawsuits that are coming?  From both Philips and the customers?

I suspect the ozone-generating devices represent a big profit center for the online respiratory equipment and supply companies and that is why many of us are still receiving marketing pitches for these items. If that is indeed the motive for continuing sales of these ozone cleaners, it is short-sighted. Of course, tobacco companies continued to market their products and to earn handsome profits even after the link between smoking, cancer and other health conditions had been definitively proven.

As you correctly point out, in the not-too-distant future, their refusal to discontinue marketing and sales of ozone-generators will set up these companies for future lawsuits, both from PAP users and from manufacturers of PAP machines.

[SarcasticDave94]

Just remember, if you do use the ozone devices, you're taking responsibility for damages. You're not going to blame the ozone manufacturers after you bought and used it.

[btreger]

Philips:

We are talking about a very large Multinational Corporation, with the ability to acquire any resource they already do not have on their payroll.

Every possible scenario we have discussed or will discuss in the future they have already discredited it, or have developed plans to trash them.

The response they publicly released came after months of high-level discussions with lawyers, tax experts, liability insurance experts, and public relations experts.

I would venture to say that they have been assured that between liability insurance and tax credits they can claim, they expect to have a very small out-of-pocket expense, relevantly speaking.

Class Action Lawsuits;
  
Lawyers take 40% off the top of any settlement. So unless they can get thousands of customers to sign on for the lawsuit, I do not see that going anywhere. 

In my opinion, I can only see two things that could change the outcome;

1. A government agency steps in and makes demands Philips cannot hide from or resist.

2. A whistleblower from inside the company steps forward, and can produce emails or other official documents that show Philips knew the medical dangers of the foam they intended to use, and still proceeded to use it.