A Bair Hugger lawsuit has alleged that the surgical tool was a factor in a devastating infection.

Plaintiff Judith C. of Louisiana had a hip replacement surgery and a follow-up surgery in February of 2009. In both procedures, surgeons used a Bair Hugger to warm her body during the procedure.

Judith’s Bair Hugger lawsuit alleges that the device “caused contaminants to be introduced into Plaintiff’s open surgical wounds, which resulted in an infection and required Plaintiff to undergo addition surgical procedures,” per the text of her Bair Hugger lawsuit. The Bair Hugger lawsuit goes on to assert that the damage from the infection has impaired Judith C’s mobility.

The Bair Hugger is device that keeps patients warm during surgical procedures, which can improve outcomes. However, Bair Hugger lawsuits like this one allege that the device changes the flow of air in surgical theaters. Judith’s Bair Hugger lawsuit alleges that the changes in air flow lifted contaminants into her surgical incisions that led to dire infections.

Judith’s Bair Hugger lawsuit alleges that between 2002 and 2009, the makers of the Bair Huggers altered the design of the Bair Hugger in such a way that tit “reduced the efficiency of the Bair Hugger air filtration blowers, which drastically reduced the safety of such blowers.” The Bair Hugger lawsuit further alleges that this meant that “the internal airflow of the Bair Hugger blowers became contaminated with pathogens.” Pathogens is a general term for bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other microscopic parasites which can cause infection.

The Bair Hugger lawsuit further alleges that the makers of the Bair Hugger continued to defend their product despite mounting evidence that the Bair Hugger was dangerous. From the text of the Bair Hugger lawsuit, a July 2012 statement by PR personnel from Bair Hugger’s makers stated that “some conductive-warming manufacturers have alleged that forced-air warming increases bacterial contamination of operating rooms or interrupts laminar airflow. These accusations have no factual basis.”

However, in response to the statement by the company, the Bair Hugger lawsuit asserts that “this statement ignored numerous published studies documenting the adverse effects of the Bair Hugger has on laminar airflows.” To back this assertion, the Bair Hugger lawsuit cites a list of six articles and states that the list is not exhaustive.

The Bair Hugger lawsuit seeks several types of compensation. First, it seeks to recoup medical costs stemming from the infection allegedly caused or promoted by the Bair Hugger including medical costs, and compensation for suffering and decreased enjoyment of life. The Bair Hugger lawsuit also seeks punitive damages.

Punitive damages refers to a type of money awarded in a suit to punish an offender and discourage further misconduct. The US justice system only allows punitive damages in very specific cases to avoid abusing this type of damages. But cases involving alleged drug or medical device fraud is one of the few types of suits that allow for punitive damages. The Bair Hugger lawsuit also seeks to recoup the cost of attorney fees and legal costs.

The Bair Hugger Lawsuit is Case No. 6509, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.