Description of Event or Problem · 1
CAS LEARNED OF THE DEATH BY WAY OF A NOTICE THAT A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN BROUGHT. THAT NOTICE ARRIVED 11/17/2010 NAMING THE DEFENDANTS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BABY'S DEATH BECAUSE IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE MONITOR DID ALARM, AWAKENING THE PARENTS, FOR SLOW HEART RATE WHEN IN FACT THE BABY HAD STOPPED BREATHING ALTOGETHER. CAS WAS NOT NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT, BUT COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF DISCOVERED THAT CAS HAS MDR REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MONITOR DUE TO A PURCHASED AND SALE AGREEMENT FROM 2000. THE MONITOR WAS NEVER MANUFACTURED BY CAS, BUT WAS MANUFACTURED BY AEQUITRON AND OR (B)(4)/NELLCOR. WHEN CAS PURCHASED THE MONITOR BUSINESS FROM NELLCOR THIS MONITOR WAS ALREADY DISCONTINUED, HOWEVER, CAS HAD RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE REGULATORY AFFAIRS OF THIS AND OTHER MONITORS AS WELL AS SERVICING RESPONSIBILITY. THE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS HAS NOT RESPONDED TO A LETTER REQUEST FOR THE MONITOR SERIAL NUMBER, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED IF THIS PARTICULAR MONITOR EVER ENTERED THE FACILITY OF CAS. CAS CLEARLY DENIES ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE PATIENT'S OUTCOME.