A Da Vinci Robot is an artificially intelligent system that is designed to recreate human injuries in any area of functioning of a human body. The original Da Vinci System was introduced in 1995 as a treatment center for children suffering from cerebral palsy. It was designed to help them recover their motor skills and to allow them to communicate with others. The plaintiffs in this case were seeking financial compensation due to injuries sustained while using the Da Vinci Robot. On March 14th the plaintiff in this case filed a Notice of Claim against defendant Global Scientific Technologies LLC.

According to a news release announcing the settlement entered into by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III on March 14th, the plaintiff in this case claimed that she was severely injured while operating the Da Vinci Robot on her own at home. She suffered injuries to her back, neck, hand, arm, shoulder, hips, back pain, and kidney infections. Additionally, the injury was sustained as the result of a non-surgical negligence on the part of Global Scientific Technologies LLC.

The plaintiff’s attorney stated in court documents that she was operating the a robot on her own when it became unexpectedly interrupted by the intervention of a surgical nurse. The nurse’s supervisor had told the surgeon prior to the operation that the a robot would be operated by the nurse. Prior to permitting the surgeon to commence with the surgery, the supervisor informed the plaintiff that if she had any questions or complaints, she should contact the doctor immediately. The plaintiff stated that she notified the doctor immediately before she experienced her injuries that she could not feel her ribs due to the positioning of her back and that she became unconscious for about one minute following the operation. The doctor performed all the requisite procedures and revived the plaintiff. However, according to the doctor’s report in a deposition, he could not feel the ribs because the rib cage had been closed by the tourniquet used during the procedure.

As a result of the injuries sustained, the plaintiff now seeks a jury verdict in favor of her claim that the Da Vinci Robot manufacturer should be liable for medical malpractice. The trial is expected to conclude in the next few months. During the course of the trial, it is expected that the jury will determine whether the robot was defective or if the surgeon was negligent. If the jury concludes that the surgeon was negligent, then the parties will enter into a plea agreement whereby the plaintiff will be awarded monetary damages, which is expected to cover her current medical expenses and other losses. If the jury concludes that the robot was defective, then the plaintiff may be eligible for a new trial.

There have been a number of different plaintiffs that have filed lawsuits against Global Scientific Technologies LLC in recent years in connection with the da robotic surgery devices manufactured by the company. Plaintiffs argue that these devices were unsafe and caused them great personal injury and suffering. Some of these plaintiffs have alleged that these injuries were caused by the defendant’s failure to provide proper warnings about the potential dangers of operating the Da Vinci robot on their patients. Another group of plaintiffs are seeking compensation from the defendants for pain and suffering they endured as a result of being held improperly liable for the injuries suffered by their child who was operated on by the defendants using the Da Vinci Robot.

Global Scientific, LLC has vigorously denied any liability in both of these instances. A hearing held by the courts in one of the cases has resulted in a decision in favor of the plaintiffs. In the second case, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking monetary damages for loss of earning capacity, permanent scarring and an inability to work as a result of their child suffering during and after a traditional pancreatectomy. If the plaintiffs in both of these cases had pursued their litigation against the manufacturer of the Da Vinci surgical system, they would most likely have prevailed. However, as the court found in both of these cases, it is impossible for the manufacturers to be sued for what is believed to be foreseeable negligence.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *