Crime & Safety
OC Company Sued For Using 'Toxic Oil' During Fertilization Treatments
Two Los Angeles residents filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that an Orange County-based company used toxic oil during IVF treatments.
ORANGE COUNTY, CA — Two Los Angeles residents filed a lawsuit Thursday in Orange County Superior Court alleging that a Santa Ana-based company used toxic oil during in vitro fertilization, or IVF, treatments that destroyed their embryos.
The plaintiffs, who were not named in the lawsuit, sued Fujifilm Irvine Scientific Inc. alleging manufacturing defect, design defect, failing to warn, negligence and negligent failure to recall.
The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The oil developed by the company is used to protect fertilized eggs when they are stored. The company issued a recall in January when it received complaints of the deaths of human embryos when coming into contact with the substance, according to the lawsuit.
Find out what's happening in Orange Countyfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The lawsuit alleges that "after receiving these reports of defective oil" the company tested "the reported lots and found oil toxicity for many of its oil lots."
The lawsuit adds that the plaintiffs "learned from their fertility clinic that their embryos were killed upon coming into contact with oil. Those embryos were viable prior to coming into contact with defendant's oil, and then were killed by defendant's oil... (The plaintiffs) are devastated. They may no longer be able to have children with their genetic material as a result of defendant's conduct."
Find out what's happening in Orange Countyfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The lawsuit faults the company for failing "to properly inspect and/or test its oil, including the recalled oil lots. Defendant knowingly put its oil into the market when it knew or should have known that the recalled oil lots posed a substantial and unacceptable risk to human embryos, including plaintiffs' embryos."
The lawsuit called the company's conduct "despicable and was carried on by defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and/or safety of others. Defendant's conduct subjected plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiffs' rights."