FDA Issues Class II Classification for Permobil M5 Corpus Wheelchair Recall
The FDA has classified a recall of 715 power wheelchairs with missing drive inhibit logic as Class II.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 6:03 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 6:03 p.m. ETFirst report
Permobil Recalls 715 M5 Corpus Power Wheelchairs Over Firmware Issue
On August 5, 2026, the FDA issued an enforcement report for an ongoing recall of 715 M5 Corpus Power Wheelchairs made by Permobil Inc of Lebanon, under recall number Z-2805-2026. The recall was initiated on June 19, 2025, and the FDA lists its status as ongoing.
The recall covers the M5 Corpus Power Wheelchair REF,120032, identified in the report as "Power Platform firmware versions 1.27 through 1.57 UDI-DI 17330818334562." The FDA enforcement report states that the recall is being reported retroactively and that the Power Platform firmware is missing specific drive inhibit logic. According to the report, the issue "may allow the chair to drive under restricted conditions, and may create an unstable condition in certain circumstances."
The report gives the distribution as: "Worldwide - US: Nationwide distribution in the states of AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY and the country of CANADA." The FDA classified the action as Class II.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 22:03current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 23:27
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 22:28current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.