Appeal Filed After Judge dismisses Collective Lawsuit Against Philips Over Defective Respirators
A collective lawsuit against Philips, filed on behalf of families who lost loved ones allegedly due to defects in the company’s respirators, has been appealed after a judge dismissed the case.The appeal, filed with the First Collegiate Tribunal of Appeal of the Second Circuit, argues the judge imposed undue requirements on plaintiffs and misinterpreted the scope of collective legal action and the rights of indirect victims.
The case centers around allegations that Philips respirators caused harm and death to patients, notably those requiring intubation. Families are seeking damages for the loss and suffering experienced as a result.
The initial dismissal,issued by a judge whose name was not provided in the source material,hinged on a requirement for plaintiffs to prove they were legal representatives of the deceased’s estate (through albaceazgo – a legal process akin to probate) before being allowed to pursue claims.
Defensor Amelio Mena argues this requirement is legally unsound.She contends the judge improperly transferred a requirement from inheritance law into the realm of collective action, a move not supported by Articles 587 and 588 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, nor by the constitutional framework for collective lawsuits. “By introducing an nonexistent requirement into the applicable regulatory regime, the resolution clearly departs from the legal framework that should have governed its action,” Mena stated.
The appeal further asserts that the judge’s decision disregards established jurisprudence from the Mexican Supreme Court. The Court has previously recognized that indirect victims – those who suffer harm as an inevitable result of another’s injury or death – have an autonomous right to claim damages. The argument emphasizes that moral damages resulting from a death should be presumed for close relatives, requiring onyl proof of the familial relationship and the death itself, without requiring proof of estate depiction.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs contend the judge applied standards typically reserved for later stages of litigation (a “standard of final sentence”) during the initial admission phase, demanding full proof of the underlying legal claim prematurely. They also allege the judge substituted the certification process with a preliminary trial and imposed non-existent evidentiary burdens. They argue this constitutes a failure to apply a human rights perspective, specifically the pro persona principle enshrined in Article 1 of the Mexican Constitution.
Jesús Ramírez Olvera, the husband of María Teresa Enriquez Salazar, who died after being intubated with a Philips respirator, expressed optimism that the appellate court will reverse the lower court’s decision.“We are confident that the district court will rule in favor of the families of the victims,” he said. “Surely it will order that the lawsuit be admitted and continue its course. We are claiming a right for the impact that these respirators caused, and in my case, for the loss of my wife’s life. Some of the victims do have accredited status as estate representatives. Hopefully, the court will understand and rule in our favor.”
The appeal has been assigned to Magistrate Sara Olimpia Reyes García. The outcome of this appeal will determine whether the collective lawsuit can proceed, perhaps opening the door for further legal action against Philips regarding the alleged defects in its respirators.
Worth a look