Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Surgical Robot End User v. Manufacturer

By Mihai Vrasmasu on August 28, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
back-pain-1911009

When most people think about product liability lawsuits involving surgical robots, they imagine the scenario where a patient undergoes an unsuccessful operation and then sues the robot manufacturer for damages. But few envision claims against robot manufacturers for injuries sustained by healthcare providers while using surgical robots. So what would such a claim look like?  And what steps can surgical robot manufacturers take to mitigate their exposure?

Gwendolyn Wilson v. Lindsey Goeglein, et al. out of Maricopa County, Arizona is a good example.  The plaintiff, a surgical nurse, was injured during an operation while assisting a doctor who was using Stryker’s Mako robot.  According to the complaint, the robot arm “released” and struck plaintiff on or about her right hand and wrist causing physical injuries and other damages. The plaintiff attributed this to either improper design/manufacture of the Mako, or a failure to adequately train and supervise robot users. The case eventually settled.

This matter is significant because it is one of the first cases we have seen concerning alleged injuries to a healthcare provider. And as more and more surgical robots make their way into operating rooms, we may start seeing claims by healthcare providers stemming not just from direct physical contact with the robots, but also from “overuse” injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome and neck and back strain.

Wilson highlights the importance of designing robots with safety features aimed at protecting not only the patients, but also end users. Such features could include sensors to prevent the robot from striking healthcare providers standing in the surgical field, and controls specifically designed to lessen stress on critical body areas like wrists, and the cervical and lumbar spine.   

To help mitigate exposure to such claims, companies should partner with ergonomics experts during product development to ensure their robots meet or exceed current ergonomic standards. They should also seek experienced legal counsel early in the product development cycle to highlight any potential areas of concern.

 

Photo of Mihai Vrasmasu Mihai Vrasmasu

Mihai Vrasmasu is a Partner in the Miami office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon. He represents multiple clients—including Fortune 100 pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers—facing complex product liability claims involving medical devices and prescription drugs.

Read more about Mihai VrasmasuEmailMihai's Linkedin Profile
  • Posted in:
    Featured Posts, Food, Drug & Agriculture, Health Care
  • Blog:
    Clinical Robotics Law Journal
  • Organization:
    Mihai Vrasmasu
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo