Hello Guest, Welcome to Apnea Board !
As a guest, you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.
To post a message, you must create a free account using a valid email address.

or Create an Account

New Posts   Today's Posts

Lawyers working on class lawsuits should obtain freshly made foam as part of the discovery process. I'm guessing that can be done, but I don't know.

The extent of degradation could be measurable by weight. On a sensitive scale foam that has degraded probably weighs less than the new foam part.

Removing the foam to retain as evidence could raise chain of custody issues. Can you prove that the foam came from your machine? Can you prove that while it was in your custody you did not expose it to heat, moisture, UV light or ozone?

There is a trade-off between acting to defend your health and preserving evidence that you were exposed to off-gasses and particles. Although not an authorized remedy, the addition of a AB filter probably is the best way to defend your health while keeping the foam in an untampered state.

However, Philips lawyers can argue that anyone can tamper with the foam without touching it just by exposing the xPAP to a lot of heat and moisture. You wouldn't do that while you were using the machine, but suppose you got a replacement. The replacement arguably makes one free to abuse the foam indirectly.

Perhaps the class action lawyers are well on their way to building a winning case. As a general rule they don't invest in cases where the probability of a significant return on investment looks unfavorable.

Meanwhile, we have to weight the pros and cons of whatever we do, even if we decide to do nothing.
Post Reply Post Reply

Donate to Apnea Board  
So, the presumption and likelihood is that they will offer a refurb or new unit and you send the old one (evidence) into the ether.
Cutting it open to visually check the foam may or may not trigger some exclusion in the replacement policy.
Maybe it comes down to - is the cost of you buying a new unit (instead of recalling the old one) worth a tradeoff to the value of potential evidence (that may or may not be of value).
The one thing we probably dont want to do, is hang on to the old unit and use it permanently - this sounds like a "if it hasnt happened yet, it will someday" event.
Post Reply Post Reply
(08-10-2021, 10:43 PM)DaveCar Wrote: < above >
For those that are going to continue using their recalled Philips device (while perhaps adding an inline AB filter), and aren't planning to purchase a replacement system, and feel they really want to know the state of their faulty foam, there might be a way to have everything:

One could remove their foam, and put it back in their machine, just prior to returning it for a fix/replacement.  It also gives you the option of completely changing your course of action if you open your device and find your foam in anything other than pristine condition.  All options are still open at the point.  I'd record the process and photograph the foam just for my personal records.  If one wishes to be extremely serious about the process, one could have a witness record the procedure and outcome.

For me, I've purchased a replacement machine, although it's not an exact level replacement to my recalled Philips BiPAP.  My current plan, subject to change should conditions change, is to remove my foam prior to returning my system for a fix/replacement.  If it's in pristine condition, I may put it back.  Anything else, and it gets stored.  

My interest in keeping the faulty foam (if it's in less than pristine condition) isn't for legal purposes.  It's firstly for my own peace-of-mind and secondly to show others - such as a current or future doctor as proof of my likely exposure.  Otherwise, we'll merely have to settle for phrases like "it's unlikely" or "it's possible".

I figure my absolute worst outcome is that I'll get my returned machine rejected - I'll give that a 10% risk initially, as it would put Philips in an extremely poor light.  I'd still have a good backup device with the faulty foam removed, possibly requiring me to tweak my pressure settings a bit.  Also, it certainly would not be the end of my recall attempt.  I'd regard it as a hiccup.  Ultimately, in my opinion, I feel there's a 0% chance that Philips won't provide me with their traditional fix/replacement.  They would have much more to lose than me, in refusing to fix/replace a faulty recalled medical device.  That certainly would be an incredible headline.

(***Disclaimer:  This is merely a discussion of possible actions and in no way serves to make recommendations or provide advice to take specific actions.  Opening a machine isn't for everyone, and I'm certainly not recommending that other users do that.  It's yet another option for people.  If one does consider opening their internal system, they do so at their own risk and should look at places other than this thread for those discussions.)
Post Reply Post Reply
"The one thing we probably dont want to do, is hang on to the old unit and use it permanently - this sounds like a "if it hasnt happened yet, it will someday" event."

Only machines stored and used where the relative humidity = 0% arguably have foam in pristine condition. All others have degraded foam even if it appears to be in excellent condition.

In other words, it has happened. And it will continue to happen if the machine is used as is. The only questions are how much degradation has occurred, and how much harm has resulted. The answers will vary from machine to machine and from user to user.

Those who continue to use their recalled machine with or without an AB filter should heed this information from the user manual. These quotes are from the cleaning instructions in a System One user manual. The DreamStation manual probably has similar content which hopefully a DreamStation user will confirm.

"CAUTION: Dirty inlet filters may cause high operating temperatures that may affect device performance. Regularly examine the inlet filters as needed for integrity and cleanliness."

"Wash the gray foam filter in warm water with a mild detergent. Rinse thoroughly to remove all detergent  residue. Allow the filter to air dry completely before reinstalling it."

"CAUTION: Never install a wet filter into the device. You must ensure sufficient drying time for the cleaned filter."

The three quotes above may give some insight into what Philips knew and when they knew it.

Standing by for ad hominem attacks.
Post Reply Post Reply

Donate to Apnea Board  
Readers need to be aware that Sam has an undemonstrated notion that any humidity causes the foam in machines to rapidly disintegrate and send out invisible carcinogens. This isn't what any health authorities or regulatory agencies worldwide think is true. So don't freak out when he says "it has happened". This is entirely his speculation.

That's not an 'ad hominem attack'.
Post Reply Post Reply

Does the words from Philips count?

Per Philips, "The foam degradation may be exacerbated by high heat and high humidity environments may also contribute to foam degradation".
Post Reply Post Reply
Sam is insisting that ANY humidity does and has caused the foam to degrade almost immediately and send out "invisible particles". That's not what PR is saying.
Post Reply Post Reply

Donate to Apnea Board  
(08-11-2021, 09:16 AM)SingingSam Wrote: Standing by for ad hominem attacks.
That gave me a good laugh.

It was both funny and sad, and it did not take long for you to get attacked. Of course, the term means attacking the subject matter, not the person who provided the subject matter. 

So by referring to you by name was the attack you were standing by for.
Post Reply Post Reply
There were cautionary warnings made previously regarding making personal attacks against poster contributions in this thread, and some of your previous postings were ultimately edited or removed.

Although you're not a Philips recalled device user or owner, your posts continue to attack the contributions made by actual recalled device users and owners who have done significant research on the Philips Recall and Philips' use of its defective foam.  

hegelplease be respectful of the contributions made by the affected users and owners of Philips recalled devices.  The impact of the Recall on this group is significant, both in the short-term and long-term.  Not being affected by the Philips Recall in any way would suggest having a different attitude on the subject.  

(08-05-2021, 07:01 PM)hegel Wrote: You wish to be left with your fear and misery... and others feel that you're doomed and tell that to millions of machine users.  I don't use a recalled PR machine. 
Post Reply Post Reply
A class action lawsuit by recalled device users is now proceeding in Australia too:

Quote:"Law firm investigates class action against Philips over recall of sleep therapy machines"
News.com Australia - August 11, 2021
Furious users of a faulty device are considering launching legal action against a global electronics giant.

Carbone Lawyers managing partner Tony Carbone said the Victorian personal injury law firm has received more than 100 inquires from concerned users in just the past two days.  

“Touch wood it’s not another asbestos or engineered stones scenario, that’s my concern because you can’t downplay shortness of breath, headaches, dizziness and lung issues – you don’t know what the effects will be long-term.”  Mr. Carbone said asbestos was a disease that manifested itself over a long period of time.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said a Philips investigation identified the majority of particles were too small to penetrate deep lung tissue, but were likely to remain in the patient’s upper airway.  It warned users could suffer symptoms such as headaches and dizziness, irritation in the eyes, nose, respiratory tract, and skin, asthma, hypersensitivity, nausea and possible carcinogenic effects.

The Cheltenham man said he immediately pulled apart the ventilator when he noticed “black soot” on the inside of the machine he regularly used.  “If you compare the device to the one I hardly use it’s clear as day,” he said.  “When I saw that I just freaked and I’m thinking a million miles an hour that’s why my throat has been so itchy, that’s why I’ve been so sensitive.  “I feel like I’m smoking again – and I gave up smoking 21 years ago – that’s how bad I feeling.  All these anomalies that have been happening in my life I thought were just life changes, but they’re not.”

Another client, who only wanted to be known as George, said he was also experiencing breathing problems, including shortness of breath, headaches and dizziness.

“Due to the volume of affected devices globally, we regret it may take some time to repair or replace individual devices. Philips will confirm time frames of the corrective action as soon as possible,” it said.  “People who have used affected Philips devices are encouraged to seek legal advice regardless of whether they can get a replacement or refund from Philips – this is due to the possibility that they may have been exposed to a substance with the potential to cause serious health risks,” Mr. Carbone said.

In a statement, Philips said investigations into potential health risks were ongoing.
Post Reply Post Reply

Donate to Apnea Board  

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  RE: System Ones - Philips Respironics Recall Update ruach 5 90 5 hours ago
Last Post: Phaleronic
  Brazen Therapy Thread Brazen 96 1,446 8 hours ago
Last Post: KeepSmiling
  Mitreal - Therapy Thread Mitreal 17 390 Yesterday, 04:32 AM
Last Post: Expat31
  Users of F20 AirTOUCH cushion how long does yours last? Labromaniac 17 860 09-24-2022, 12:50 PM
Last Post: Labromaniac
  [Equipment] Philips Respironics DreamStation 1 Humidifier Flip Latch spring BigT56 2 86 09-23-2022, 05:07 PM
Last Post: BigT56
Gross Quarky68 Therapy Thread Quarky68 31 1,479 09-22-2022, 04:35 PM
Last Post: Jeff8356
  airboss27 - Therapy Thread airboss27 4 95 09-22-2022, 06:16 AM
Last Post: OpalRose

New Posts   Today's Posts

About Apnea Board

Apnea Board is an educational web site designed to empower Sleep Apnea patients.