(03-22-2022, 12:30 PM)btreger Wrote: A Philips spokesperson said in an emailed statement: "Based on the knowledge and insights at that time, this was not considered a correction and consequently was not reported to the FDA." According to Philips, the FDA discovered the correction during a facility inspection from August to November 2021, and the agency has now been labeled the correction a Class I recall, affecting about 230,000 units.

(03-22-2022, 12:52 PM)TimaaaaaaaahRocks Wrote: Correction? What correction? "Tis but a scratch"

(03-22-2022, 03:54 PM)btreger Wrote: Are you referring to Monty Python or Shakespeare, or both?

Quote:From Slater and Gordon (Australia) regarding the Philips class action:


Outcome of the investigation:
Unfortunately, our investigation has led us to the conclusion that a potential class action against Philips is unlikely to be viable at this time, and it is therefore not a matter we can recommend pursuing at this stage.

There has clearly been significant inconvenience and distress associated with the recall of Philips Machines, in particular around the delay and uncertainty around timing of when machines will be repaired or replaced.

Findings of our investigation:
It is our view that, despite the distress and inconvenience arising from the recall, any compensation relating to financial loss would be relatively confined given our understanding that the manufacturer has undertaken to repair, replace or refund the models which are the subject of the recall. We understand the recall by Philips and the Therapeutic Goods Administration, albeit progressing slowly, is progressing and purchasers of the machine are able to be remediated for their recalled machines. This means that any claim for compensation would likely only relate to the distress and inconvenience suffered as a result of the delay, rather than the cost of the machine itself.

While we appreciate that for many people the distress and the inconvenience has been very significant, unfortunately at law that type of claim attracts very little, if any, compensation. Given the legal costs for undertaking class action litigation are very significant, it would be difficult to justify running a proceeding directed towards obtaining compensation for the inconvenience and or distress where the legal costs of the litigation would be expected to absorb the majority, if not all, of any compensation which could at law be recovered on behalf of the group and as such provide little or no net financial return to those affected.

In relation to any potential personal injury claims arising from injuries suffered from the risks which led to the recall of machines, the position is very unclear at this stage. While naturally manufacturers are unlikely to embark upon a costly recall without a proper basis, at this stage we have seen no scientific or medical evidence to warrant the commencement of a class action proceeding directed towards recovering compensation for physical injuries caused by the recalled products.

In litigation such as this, the scientific and medical expert evidence that would be required to succeed in bringing a claim is likely to be very complex and almost certainly would be strongly contested by the manufacturer. At the moment that evidence does not, on our investigations, appear to exist.

We would need to have sufficient evidence to form the view that a proceeding would be likely to succeed before being able to commence a class action, in particular it is not permissible at law to commence a claim and hope that the evidence later becomes available to succeed in the claim.

Time Limits:
We will continue to monitor the situation and if further evidence does come to light we will reconsider the prospects of bringing a claim. However, there are strict time limits within which a person must bring a claim, otherwise their right to do so will be extinguished at law. In very broad terms the relevant time limits are three years to bring a personal injury claim based in negligence and 6 years for a claim based in consumer protection legislation.

The deadline created by these limitation periods is generally strictly applied. Although it can be possible to apply for an extension of time to commence proceedings after this deadline has lapsed in some circumstances and jurisdictions, the availability of this option will depend on a number of different factors and doing so requires seeking permission from the court as a first step. Success in such an application is not guaranteed. A key factor that would be considered by a court in deciding whether to grant an extension is the explanation available for any delay, and relatedly, whether the claimant had previously obtained legal advice about their rights to pursue a claim before their time limit expired. Accordingly, we encourage you to seek any legal advice you require regarding an individual claim for compensation as promptly as possible in order to avoid any risks related to the applicable limitations period.

Final Steps
We are writing to you at this stage to advise that we currently see no realistic prospects of bringing a claim either in respect of the inconvenience claim or any personal injuries which may be attributable to the recalled models.

Other legal firms may take a different view as to the prospects of bringing such a proceeding and we are aware that at least one firm has made some public statements about pursuing a class action and may indeed have already commenced a class action. Accordingly, you may wish to make your own inquiries with any other firms that have advertised an interest in pursuing such litigation.

We regret that our investigations have led us to conclude that a class action concerning Philips recall appears unlikely to be viable at this time, and that we will therefore be unable to take any further action on your behalf in relation to this matter.

We will continue to monitor any new developments in relation to the recall and how you and other consumers of the machines are impacted by this issue, and if our assessment changes concerning the ability to pursue this matter as a class action, we will advise you accordingly.

We wish you all the best.

Yours faithfully,
Slater and Gordon Lawyers

(03-24-2022, 12:51 AM)Aero Man Wrote: One of the included docs titled "Basic Setup & Return Instructions" had the following statement "...Failure to return your original device to Philips could result in your being billed for payment of that device, as you now have two devices, but only paid for one." - yeah right.  The FDA has determined that the first device manufactured by Philips was defective and unsafe to use so I possess one, not two usable devices.

(03-20-2022, 10:30 PM)cbeissel Wrote: In Australia Carbone Lawyers are gathering participants for a class action lawsuit.