Medline recalls 15 convenience kits over potentially contaminated component

FDA classifies the action as Class II, saying the chance of serious harm is remote.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 9, 2026, 8:28 p.m. ET

, of , Illinois, initiated a recall of 15 convenience kits labeled LTP CDS-LF (SKU CDS980375M) on July 10, 2026, according to an FDA enforcement report dated September 2, 2026. The recall, listed as , was classified as by the FDA. The kits contain a potentially contaminated component that was recalled by the manufacturer, the FDA report states. The affected kits carry UDI/DI 10198459447327 (each) and 40198459447328 (case), with kit lot number 25JBE079. They were distributed nationwide in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. The FDA defines a recall as one where the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm and where the chance of serious harm is remote. The FDA database records no other enforcement action by .

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 110 Sept 2026, 00:28current
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.