SEC Filings

INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC filed this Form 10-K on 02/02/2018
Entire Document
 << Previous Page | Next Page >>

On March 5, 2015, a fifth alleged stockholder caused a substantially similar purported stockholder’s derivative lawsuit entitled Back v. Guthart et al., No. 3:15-CV-01037, to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 7, 2015, the lawsuit was related to In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation and Berg v. Guthart. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 10, 2015. On August 13, 2015, the parties stipulated to a complete stay of the matter and the court entered an order reflecting the stay on August 17, 2015. On September 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay and reopen the case and for leave to file amended complaint. On September 25, 2017, the individual defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, which the Company joined on September 26, 2017. Plaintiff filed his reply October 2, 2017, and the Court set a hearing for January 25, 2018. While the motion was pending however, the settlement described above was approved by the court in the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago action. Accordingly, on November 22, 2017, the parties in the Back action filed a stipulation requesting that the court dismiss the action with prejudice. The court entered the stipulation later the same day, and the matter is now resolved.
Product Liability Litigation
The Company is currently named as a defendant in approximately 43 individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases death as a result of such surgery. The Company has also received a large number of product liability claims from plaintiffs’ attorneys, many of which are subject to certain tolling agreements further discussed below. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court. In total, plaintiffs in that case seek damages on behalf of 55 patients from 22 different states who had surgeries in which their surgeons used the da Vinci Surgical System. Several of the filed cases have trial dates in the next 12 months.
The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company’s part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs’ surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have also engaged in well-funded national advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with surgery utilizing the da Vinci Surgical System. The Company has received a significant number of such claims from plaintiffs’ attorneys that it believes are a result of these advertising efforts. A substantial number of claims relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor (“MCS”) instruments which included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the subject of a recall in 2013. In an effort to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of limitations for many of these claims and engaged in confidential mediation efforts.
After an extended confidential mediation process with legal counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling agreements, the Company determined during 2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims was appropriate. During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, the Company recorded $16.3 million, $8.3 million, and $13.8 million, respectively, of pre-tax charges to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the tolling agreements. As of December 31, 2017, and 2016, a total of $12.8 million and $20.5 million, respectively, were included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the pending product-liability cases and the tolled product liability claims.
The Company’s estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving both the pending cases and the tolled claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for claimants who have participated in the mediation process. Nonetheless, it is possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals and that the claimants whose claims were not resolved through the mediation program, as well as those claimants who have not participated in mediations, will choose to pursue greater amounts in a court of law. Consequently, the final outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability claims may be materially different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, and future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time.
In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a product liability action that had originally been filed in Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the healthcare providers and hospital involved in a decedent’s surgery on such decedent’s behalf (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor


 << Previous Page | Next Page >>