The customer reported problem was confirmed.The device was repaired, retested, and returned to the customer.A review of the device history record in sap for sn (b)(4) was performed from the date of the manufacture to date of the release of product, which confirmed that this device was not involved in a production failure, and product was returned for servicing which correlates to the customer reported issue.A review of the complaint history record in the trackwise was performed for the sn (b)(4) which confirmed no similar complaints with the same or related failure mode.The customer stated that there is no patient involvement.
|
Service: retro: lvp bezel post recall 2017.(b)(4).During the repair process, it was determined that the original problem code should have been broken (broken damaged) for complaint trending purposes file reopened to add track wise pr number to the device data field.This file was initially classified as a level 3 non-complaint for preventative maintenance, upgrade, reconditioning, customer inquiry, or recall which do not require customer advocacy quality review, per (b)(4).This file contained documentation of product deficiency allegations, per (b)(4), and/or repairs (which may or may not have been performed) that are out-of-scope with the initial level 3 non-complaint.Such documentation upgraded the file to a level 2 complaint, per (b)(4), which required a level 2 customer advocacy quality review, also per(b)(4).
|