Davinci- what a scam

https://youtu.be/6-o3PW20FD4

 

The analysts understand that settling lawsuits is the cost of doing business and have accounted for it in their outlook.

 

http://louisianarecord.com/stories/510986349-woman-claims-hysterectomy-surgery-caused-her-prolonged-pain-and-suffering

The more I dig the more I find.
Just keep finding new ones all the time.
Really curious how many there really are?

 

oh sip. ruby and his red slippers are about to fall. slip or sip ruby. you're about to fall.


hard

 

Q. Do you have an opinion as to the cause -- 05:18:51 4 specific cause of what you, in hindsight, believe is a 05:18:56 5 thermal injury to Mr. P ? 05:19:06 6 A. I believe that based on the way I recall the 05:19:14 7 surgery and the way the immediate postoperative period 05:19:19 8 went and what happened about 30 hours after the surgery 05:19:23 9 that it is most likely that a thermal injury occurred to 05:19:27 10 an area of the rectum that was not at the immediate tip 05:19:31 11 of the monopolar scissors. In other words, it was in a 05:19:38 12 space apart from that. 05:19:39 13 And as I explained, there's several 05:19:41 14 tissues and several opportunities where the shaft of the 05:19:45 15 monopolar scissors on direct contact and proximity with 05:19:49 16 the bladder as well as the rectum and other structures. 05:19:54 17 And during the dissection, the camera is so far forward 05:19:58 18 that only a small portion of the tip of the scissors is 05:20:02 19 visible, precluding me from actually seeing if there was 05:20:06 20 arcing and where the arcing or the insulation failure or 05:20:09 21 the leakage of energy would have transpired. 05:20:13 22 It is further on my belief that that area 05:20:16 23 of the rectum was perhaps damaged to some degree by the 05:20:23 24 thermal injury [sic] and under the assumption there was 05:20:29 25 a partial thickness injury, it was not immediately
Case 3:15-cv-04113-MEJ Document 125-10 Filed 06/20/17 Page 37 of 57
Claus G. Roehrborn, MD 218
DepoTexas, Inc. 05:20:34 1 evidenced and visible for examination of the finger test 05:20:38 2

 

OUCH TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM RUBY!

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1149229688556271&id=1139404782872095

 

FRAUDULANT CONCEALMENT



There are "four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts. [Citation.]" (Heliotis v. Schuman (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 646, 651 [226 Cal.Rptr. 509].) All the above apply in this case.


(5) "Not every fraud arises from an affirmative misstatement of material fact. `The principle is fundamental that "[deceit] may be negative as well as affirmative; it may consist of suppression of that which it is one's duty to declare as well as of the declaration of that which is false." Thus section 1709 of the Civil Code provides: "One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers." Section 1710 of the Civil Code in relevant part provides: "A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either: ... 3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact ...."'" (Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 85, 95 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 711].) (6) "[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud based on concealment are: `"(1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage."'" (Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 850 [100 Cal.Rptr.3d 637].)

(see, e.g., Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 878 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 325] ["[c]oncealment is a species of fraud, and `[f]raud must be pleaded with specificity'"]) or to identify the source of a duty on their part to disclose such information, if known, to Plaintiff (see, e.g., Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 745 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 527]).

The Plaintiffs respond that, "generally speaking, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products. The requirement's purpose is to inform consumers about a product's hazards and faults of which they are unaware, so that they can refrain from using the product altogether or evade the danger by careful use." (Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 64 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 108, 179 P.3d 905], citing Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 1003 [281 Cal.Rptr. 528, 810 P.2d 549]; accord, Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1316 [120 Cal.Rptr.3d 605].) Thus, the Plaintiffs argue, defendants owed a duty to share information about the defects of their products with those who could be expected to use those products, namely Plaintiffs surgeon, and they as plaintiffs should be permitted to explore the extent of defendants' knowledge of these hazards in discovery without first identifying specific acts by defendants, precisely because defendants alone know when they became aware of the particular hazards associated with their products. Requiring specificity at this juncture, they assert, is neither realistic nor mandated by case law. As one court has aptly observed, "it is harder to apply [the requirement of specificity] to a case of simple nondisclosure. `How does one show "how" and "by what means" something didn't happen, or "when" it never happened, or "where" it never happened?'" (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384 [89 Cal.Rptr.3d 659] (Alfaro); see also Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 217 [197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660] ["`[e]ven under the strict rules of common law pleading, one of the canons was that less particularity is required when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party ...'"].)11

(7) These principles are equally pertinent to the scope of defendants' duty to disclose. Although, typically, a duty to disclose arises when a defendant owes a fiduciary duty to a plaintiff (see, e.g., Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 346-347 [134 Cal.Rptr. 375, 556 P.2d 737]), a duty to disclose may also arise when a defendant possesses or exerts control over material facts not readily available to the plaintiff. (See, e.g., Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 482 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 225] ["`[t]he duty to disclose may arise without any confidential relationship where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff'"].) In LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 539], each of the circumstances cited by the court in which a duty to disclose may exist absent the presence of a fiduciary relationship concerns the defendant's exertion of control over material facts that were not disclosed to the plaintiff, that is "`when the defendant ha exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff'"; "`when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff'"; or "`when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts.'"

Here, the complaint alleges defendants were "aware of the defects of their products" and "owed a duty to disclose the defects of their products to [FDA] because [they] alone had knowledge of material facts, to wit the defects of their products, which were not available to [FDA]." It also alleges defendants owed a duty to disclose because they "made representations regarding their products, but failed to disclose additional facts which materially qualify the facts disclosed, and/or which rendered the disclosures made likely to mislead [FDA – SURGEON - Plaintiff]." These conclusory allegations are supplemented with respect to the single compound insulation epoxy. The Plaintiff cite studies published as early as 2009 attesting to DaVinci defects, at least a year before Plaintiff had her surgery where she was exposed to the DaVinci product with defective insulation.


At a minimum, the complaint states a viable claim for fraudulent concealment against Intuitive Surgical Inc. The manufacturer of the product DaVinci, which allegedly contained Defective epoxy for insulating the Monopolor Hot Shears attachment. The Plaintiffs have alleged DaVinci Monopolor Hot shears was known to be hazardous as early as 2009, and DEFENDANTS concealed the defective properties of their product, which Plaintiff would not have used (or signed a release or agreement) had she been fully advised of its defects.


In this case, Plaintiff was unable to learn promptly of the product defects that resulted in her injuries due to Defendant’s fraudulent conduct in ignoring its legal obligation to communicate these defects to Plaintiff’s physician. Thus, the sole reason that Plaintiffs did not bring their claim within the ordinary limitations period is that Defendant wrongfully concealed from them the information that formed the basis of this claim. (SEE POHLY EXHIBITS) The impropriety of Defendant’s conduct and resultant prejudice to Plaintiffs necessitates application of the estoppel doctrine here. Rejection of the estoppel doctrine would fail to properly account for the issue of the concealment from the FDA and surgeon community of the product defect causative in the injury sustained by Plaintiff.

 

Although Defendant knew or should have known of the defective nature of its da Vinci Robotic platform using monopolar current, it continued to design, manufacture, market, and promote the use of its da Vinci Robotic platform so as to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the Plaintiff, public health and safety. Defendant thus acted with conscious and deliberate disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by the continued use of monopolar energy on its robotic platform.

To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must essentially show that the defendant concealed material facts and, as a result of the defendant’s fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff did not timely discover and in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have timely discovered the defendant’s fraud. Kimball, 220 Cal. at 215; Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal. 2d 767, 778; Cal. Evid. Code § 623 (codifying the doctrine of equitable estoppel). 
 The California Supreme Court has held that, when a drug manufacturer utilizes sales representatives (Intuitive Surgical Sales Reps) to promote its products to physicians (as Defendant does), it should also use its sales representatives (“detail men”) to issue warnings to physicians. Stevens, 9 Cal.3d at 67 (“if detail men are an effective means of selling a product and explaining its nature, a jury could find that they also afforded an effective medium of conveying a warning.”).


Contrary to its duty to issue warnings, Defendant never took any measures to warn Plaintiff’s da Vinci surgeon, regarding the patient safety risks associated with a da Vinci hysterectomy, including the risk of thermal injury. Importantly, plaintiff’s surgeon should be allowed to testify that Defendants sales representatives visited her to both promote and encourage da Vinci hysterectomy procedures. She should be allowed to testify if she would not have used the da Vinci robot if Intuitive had informed her of the defects that are the subject of this lawsuit. According to the facts, Intuitive did not actually notify her (Plaintiff’s da Vinci surgeon) of the product defects associated with da Vinci instruments, including the Tip Cover Accessory and Monopolar Curved Scissors.


The Plaintiff, a patient in this case, relied on the learned intermediary, her surgeon, to provide her with all relevant information about the safety of the procedure she underwent. Thus, while there may not have been a legal reliance on a direct misrepresentation to Plaintiff herself, there was a reliance on plaintiff’s learned intermediary. In this case, that learned intermediary plaintiffs surgeon should be allowed to testify under oath that she was not informed of any product defect with the robotic instrument, and that if she had been so informed she would not have used that robotic instrument in Plaintiff’s surgery.



California law provides that when there is a duty to speak/warn, silence constitutes fraud.


There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.

Page 98 U. S. 65

 

Four years now I've been watching this thread. The same bs for over a thousand pages and still no law suit has amounted to anything. You keep throwing around this 130 million like that's some big deal. Ambulance chasing lawyers looking for a buck is why 130 million has been spent. You want to know the real tradgedy? If thousands of bs suits weren't being piled on the handful of truly deserving patients who experienced a defective product issue would have been adequately compensated. Now, thanks to these bottom feeder lawyers with nothing else to do with their time most patients are automatically denied and sent to trial. 130 million... 125 of which is currently lining attorney pockets. Great job dwas. Btw, before you claim your helping patients avoid robotic surgery keep in mind you told me that four years ago and the number of robotic procedures has increased quarter over quarter, year over year and will continue. Move on

 

Who are these bottom feeding lawyer you speak of? Name one? You want to hear about BS, Intuitive Surgical has murdered and injured people. They have admitted in court documents that they knew for years about defects and didn't nothing while people got hurt, and you are upset at the professionals that are representing the victims? Now thats BS.

With caps on recovery in almost every state, these "bottom feeding" lawyers have to fork over hundreds and thousands of dollars getting these cases to court. There is NO guarantee they will get a dime. Most States have mandatory payment caps on compensation for lawyers and almost all these cases have taken years fighting MSJ's getting to this point.

Your hatred of victims on this site is telling. But keep watching, there are still over 97 cases in court NOW. These victims are fighting you lowlife ISIS rats.

 

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/213195-Inoperative-units-hindering-SIUTs-bid-to-buy-robotic-surgical-system

The robotic surgery systems were installed at the two hospitals in 2011 at a cost of $3 million each but, after performing a few dozen surgeries, both systems broke down, he added.

“The robotic systems at both the hospitals have been lying idle for the past two years,” he said. “The hospitals require hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the systems repaired.”

“Surgeons at our hospital performed around 90 procedures with the help of the robotic system after its installation, but due to lack of maintenance the system broke down and now has been lying non-functional for the past two years,” Dr Masood said.

According to him, initially, the robotic surgical system was operated by Dr Faiz who performed several surgeries and, later, Dr Umer Fateh performed a couple of dozen surgeries before the system broke down.

On the other hand, Qatar Hospital Medical Superintendent Dr Khalid Masood said Intuitive Surgical Inc had demanded Rs40 million for fixing the robotic system at the hospital. He said the hospital’s management had asked the Sindh government to provide the required funds for the repairs. They still waiting since 2011.

DaVinci what a lemon


Lemon laws are American state laws that provide a remedy for purchasers of cars and other consumer goods in order to compensate for products that repeatedly fail to meet standards of quality and performance. Although there may be defective products of all sorts ranging from small electrical appliances to huge pieces of machinery, the term "lemon" is most often used to describe defective motor vehicles such as automobiles, trucks, SUVs, and motorcycles.

Ok DaVinci is a grapefruit then.
Big fat sour that leaves a bitter after taste!

Why buy another robot if it only works for a month? Oh right to sell sell sell surgeries they don't need.
#ripoff
#scam
#risingcostofhealthcare

 

good post

 

Four years now....and I am in pain from the moment I wake up to the moment I fall asleep and if I forget to take my meds I will wake up in the middle of the night with pain. Four years now and I'm grateful to be alive even though I live in pain rather than having died from the of abcess that ruptured inside me. Four years now and we have been so grateful that our lawyers are working for free to get me to trial. Four years now I've seen delay after delay after delay....the lawyers working on victims' cases are NOT ambulance chasers....they have actually restored my faith in lawyers. I only hope that my faith is restored in our justice system too.

 

Four years now....and I am in pain from the moment I wake up to the moment I fall asleep and if I forget to take my meds I will wake up in the middle of the night with pain. Four years now and I'm grateful to be alive even though I live in pain rather than having died from the of abcess that ruptured inside me. Four years now and we have been so grateful that our lawyers are working for free to get me to trial. Four years now I've seen delay after delay after delay....the lawyers working on victims' cases are NOT ambulance chasers....they have actually restored my faith in lawyers. I only hope that my faith is restored in our justice system too.

 

If you were smart and this is true then you would tell many of the DWAS members here to shut the hell up and stop ranting and spewing crap. Making ridiculous statement after ridiculous statement only hurts your cause and the support someone like myself has for actual victims. I would not let my wife at this point have a Da Vinci procedure (unless there was no other possible choice) so I certainly do not support the use of the robot like it is being used, but I read so much DWAS BS it is hard to take them seriously.

 

Stop lying, you don't support any of these victims. Your hatred for victims is well noted on this forum... It obvious to all, your just mad at this DWAS group for showing the world that your robot is a piece of shit.

 

Report: Intuitive Surgical won’t sell in Pakistan until da Vinci devices back on line

http://www.massdevice.com/report-intuitive-surgical-wont-sell-pakistan-da-vinci-devices-back-line/

Intuitive Surgical (NSDQ:ISRG) is reportedly refusing to sell any more of its da Vinci robot-assisted surgery platforms in Pakistan until the two it’s already got on the market there are brought back on line.

The Sindh Institute of Urology & Transplantation in Karachi asked to acquire a da Vinci system, according to The News of Pakistan, but Intuitive Surgical refused until a pair of disused da Vincis at other hospitals in Karachi are made operable again.

Intuitive said the already-installed systems at the Civil Hospital and the Government Qatar Hospital must stay on line for at least a year before it will sell any more systems in Pakistan, according to the newspaper, which cited “a senior official of the Sindh health department.”

“The reason behind the refusal was the fact that the corporation was one of international repute and the broken robotic systems at two government-run hospitals in Karachi were tarnishing its image, said the official who requested anonymity,” the paper reported.

The two existing systems, sold in 2011 at $3 million apiece, have been idle for two years after breaking down for lack of maintenance following about 100 procedures, the official said.

“The hospitals require hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the systems repaired,” he told The News, adding that the company has also rebuffed other, private Pakistani hospitals looking to buy its flagship product.

For one of the abortive deals, the local health department put up about $2.4 million (PKR250 million), the source said, “but when the manufacturing firm stated its conditions, [Sindh Institute of Urology & Transplantation] officials said they would provide half of the funds for repair of the machine at the [Civil Hospital] while the other half was to be arranged by the health department,” the official told the newspaper.

Qatar Hospital medical superintendent Dr. Khalid Masood told the paper that Intuitive asked for $381,000 to repair its da Vinci, which the hospital’s management asked the local government to provide.

A representative for Intuitive did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

DWAS is quoted as saying, "I guess after you spend 3 million for a broken piece of shit you find there is no warranty."

Da vinci, what a scam is right.

 

MAUDE - Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience

269 records meeting your search criteria returned- Manufacturer: intuitive Surgical Event Type: Death Report Date From: 05/01/2001 Report Date To: 07/02/2017

Manufacturers and importers must submit reports when they become aware of information that reasonably suggests that one of their marketed devices may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or has malfunctioned and the malfunction of the device or a similar device that they market would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur. Manufacturers must send reports of such deaths, serious injuries and malfunctions to the FDA. Importers must send reports of deaths and serious injuries to the FDA and the manufacturer, and reports of malfunctions to the manufacturer.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/Search.cfm


More deaths added daily.

Anyone get the feeling this machine is not fixed?

 

Another DWAS idiot. I don't work for Intuitive, have never worked for them, and never want to work for them. SO what you call obvious shows you are just another moron