The reported device, intended for use in treatment, was received for evaluation.There was a relationship found between the returned device and the reported incident.A review of the device history records show there are no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification or would not be able to perform as intended.A complaint history review concluded this was a repeat issue.Visual inspection observed a rusted base and the manual switch cap is missing.Functional evaluation revealed no issues.The damage to the device did not impact functionality.The complaint was verified.Factors, unrelated to the design or manufacture of the device which could have contributed to the complaint event, include damage sustained to the device, which could have been caused by running over with another portable object/machine, being stepped on or being dropped.
|