TAXOTERE
Taxotere Lawsuits
investigating drug injury claims
Recent studies suggest the drug company Sanofi-Aventis may have known that its breast cancer treatment drug Taxotere causes permanent hair loss, but for competitive reasons chose to hide the problem from physicians and patients. Taxotere lawsuits have followed.
This has resulted in the exposure of thousands of patients to the drug’s toxic side effects, most notably an increased risk of permanent alopecia (loss of hair). Many post-treatment patients have been diagnosed with alopecia universalis, a loss of nearly all body hair, including eyebrows and eyelashes.
Although alopecia is a common side effect related to chemotherapy drugs, permanent hair loss is not typically to be expected. Patients regularly expect that hair growth will resume when chemo treatments are discontinued.
Sanofi may have intentionally misled the public, and the medical community in downplaying the severity of hair loss. Thousands treated with Taxotere are now confronted with permanent physical injury, psychological damage, and depression.
What is Taxotere?
Taxotere (docetaxel) is an intravenous chemotherapy drug. It is part of the taxanes family of drugs, designed to prevent the growth of cancer cells within a patient’s body. It is commonly used in the treatment of breast cancer, and other cancers such as prostate and stomach cancer.
Taxotere went generic in 2011, and there are now at least seven different generic versions of the drug (docetaxel).
Cancer Treatment Victims Face Unnecessary Risks
There is significant public outrage at this large corporation taking advantage of very ill, vulnerable individuals. Had Sanofi notified physicians and patients of associated risks, many may have chosen alternative drugs. Existing products on the market, such as paclitaxel, are as effective as Taxotere, and do not cause permanent alopecia (hair loss).
This was apparently reason for Sanofi to misrepresent their product. Rather than properly warn of the possible severe alopecia, Sanofi instead elected to increase revenues at the expense of cancer victims. Sales of Taxotere in 2010 were reportedly over $1.2 billion. Victims and consumer rights advocates demand that drug manufacturers be held accountable for their damaging, profit-based decisions.
CONTACT THE LYON FIRM TODAY
Please complete the form below for a FREE consultation.
ABOUT THE LYON FIRM
Joseph Lyon has 17 years of experience representing individuals in complex litigation matters. He has represented individuals in every state against many of the largest companies in the world.
The Firm focuses on single-event civil cases and class actions involving corporate neglect & fraud, toxic exposure, product defects & recalls, medical malpractice, and invasion of privacy.
NO COST UNLESS WE WIN
The Firm offers contingency fees, advancing all costs of the litigation, and accepting the full financial risk, allowing our clients full access to the legal system while reducing the financial stress while they focus on their healthcare and financial needs.
Deceptive Drug Marketing
Sanofi marketed Taxotere as a superior treatment for breast cancer, but no study supported these claims, resulting in a warning letter from the FDA in 2009, which sternly shows no tolerance for the company’s “violations.”
The FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing stated: “These claims misleadingly suggest that Taxotere is superior [to similar treatment],” and “overstate the efficacy of Taxotere.” The FDA stated it was “unaware of substantial evidence to support these claims.”
Faulty Taxotere Warnings
Sanofi, a French-based corporation, published warnings in other countries regarding Taxotere and the possible risk of permanent hair loss, but not openly in their U.S. labeling. Taxotere lawsuits assert that the company withheld pertinent information from U.S. customers, providing only a murky warning that “hair generally grows back.”
On the market since 1996, Sanofi-Aventis allegedly did not notify the FDA of these particular concerns until the winter of 2015. The drug is still under investigation, and the FDA has forced Sanofi to place a new warning on the product label.
Taxotere Lawsuits & Studies
Data from a recent study which was published in the Annals of Oncology suggests that “severe and permanent” female hair loss is a side effect of Taxotere (docetaxel).
The study noted that hair regrowth therapies have been found ineffective.
Another study published by the National Cancer Research Institute in 2013 found permanent hair loss as a side effect in 10-15 percent of patients who took the medication. Researchers reported “Long term significant scalp alopecia.” As a direct result, patients confirmed a significant impact on their current quality of life.
Taxotere Side Effects
In addition to permanent hair loss, according to its prescribing information, Taxotere treatment may be associated with the following conditions:
• Nerve damage
• Heart issues
• Gastrointestinal disruption
• Nausea
• Bone, muscle, and/or joint pain
• Fatigue
• Mouth/throat sores
• Fluid retention
• Numbness of fingers and/or toes
![photo of attorney Joe Lyon](/wp-content/themes/yootheme/cache/6e/0D89F313-4063-4C39-A2F0-476139B3AF64-1-scaled-6e9b18c0.jpeg)
Why are these cases important?
By taking the initiative and filing drug injury lawsuits, plaintiffs can receive proper compensation and hold a corporation accountable for their negligent actions. Consumer safety depends largely on making sure companies operate within the law and within ethical boundaries.
CONTACT THE LYON FIRM TODAY
Questions about Pharmaceutical Litigation
When drug makers and large corporations are negligent and produce dangerous products that lead to serious illness and injury, legal action can be necessary. In the current corporate environment, filing lawsuits is one of the only ways to keep drug companies from selling untested and dubious pharmaceuticals in the name of profit. Pharmaceutical litigation – through a lawsuit against a drug manufacturer- helps bring awareness to these companies as to the necessary changes that need to occur in order to keep people safe a healthy while taking a certain drug.
By taking the initiative and filing drug injury lawsuits, plaintiffs can receive proper compensation and hold a corporation accountable for their negligent actions. Consumer safety depends largely on making sure companies operate within the law and within ethical boundaries.
In past litigation, it has been discovered that drug companies often delay adding serious side effects to a drug’s label due to concerns about the impact on the sales and marketing. If a drug carries more serious side effects, physicians and patients look for alternative treatments with less risk and the same or similar benefit. As a result, there is a financial incentive not to strengthen the warning label.
However, the label is the source of information that physicians and patients rely upon when making these important health decisions. There is no excuse for a company not to update its label when the science is sufficient to show an association with the medication.
Most experts would agree that the FDA is not designed nor does it have the resources to monitor every product through the post approval process once it has been granted clearance. Very simply, the volume of drugs that are presented for review is too demanding, so, while the FDA is a good initial step in the process, the responsibility of providing safe and effective pharmaceutical companies remains on the companies that profit from the sales.
While the pharmaceutical companies have yielded more influence over the review process, ultimately, the law is very clear that it is the company’s responsibility to run the appropriate tests, track the data, and to identify the side effects and then warn consumers and physicians adequately and in a timely manner. Government approval is not a shield for liability. The Failure to timely and sufficiently warn of side effects operates as the primary cause of action for pharmaceutical claims.
Most importantly, the FDA and the government do not provide for compensation when someone is injured by a pharmaceutical product. The civil justice system provides the means for an individual harmed by a pharmaceutical product to obtain justice and recover for the losses suffered.
Without the civil justice system, companies would not be required to pay for the harm they cause, and the public tax system, in terms of Medicare and Medicaid, would have to absorb that loss. In other words, without pharmaceutical lawsuits, the tax payers would pay for corporate malfeasance and neglect.
The current opioid crisis is a good example of how over-prescribing medications can lead to a huge public health crisis. Pain medications have been a great tool for physicians in treating a wide variety of conditions, however, the abuse of prescribing and using pain medication has turned into one of biggest areas of pharmaceutical litigation today.
It is not only opioids that have been prescribed in huge numbers. Other drugs that have only been tested in short trials are released to the market each year and injure patients. A few examples of drug injury:
Testosterone: Low T clinics are under investigation after many patients receiving testosterone therapy have reported strokes and heart attacks. Experts say doctors may be pushing the therapy when not every aging man requires testosterone therapy.
Antibiotics: Antibiotic injuries are being reported at record rates as the drugs are prescribed more than ever before. Drug resistance and drug injury rates are on the rise, concerning the medical community and consumer protection attorneys.
Diabetes Drug Injury: Severe side effects are being reported by diabetes patients taking Invokana and other diabetes medications. Amputations and gangrene cases have opened the eyes of many taking the drugs, and lawsuits have been filed on their behalf.
Drug Contamination: Valsartan and Losartan contamination cases have raised the risk of patient cancer. Drug companies have failed to control the production process and put consumers at unnecessary risk.
Opioid Painkiller Lawsuits: Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and other large drug companies are deep in pharmaceutical settlement talks many years after the beginning of the opioid addiction crisis. Thousands of Americans die each year in opioid-related overdose deaths, many of which begin with doctors over-prescribing pain medications.
Depo Provera: Confidential settlement from Pfizer to resolve all of the claims currently pending in the New Jersey State coordinated litigation. Joseph Lyon represented 13 females who suffered osteoporosis due to the failure of Pfizer to properly warn them and their physicians.
Seroquel: AstraZeneca resolved claims for $198 Million regarding claims that the company failed to warn about risks of diabetes and excessive weight gain. The Lyon Firm participated in this settlement and represented numerous claimants. In addition to the individual claims, Federal prosecutors and authorities from several U.S. states investigated whether AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel off-label, or for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The company announced a settlement of $520 million with the U.S. Justice Department over the matter.
Trasylol: Bayer resolved certain claims for $60 Million for patients who suffered heart failure and death as a result of the drug Trasylol. Trasylol was a drug used to prevent excessive bleeding during heart surgery. The science unequivocally showed Trasylol can cause kidney damage, heart failure and strokes, and greatly increase patients’ risk of post-surgery death when compared to rival treatments.
In 2006, a study by Dr. Dennis Mangano was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluding that the drug more than doubled the risk of renal failure. After fourteen years on the market, Bayer suspended sales in November 2007. The Lyon Firm participated in this settlement.
Vioxx: Merck settled the outstanding Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion. The Lyon Firm participated in this settlement. In 2004, after a study showed Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes, Merck pulled Vioxx from the market. The case was then litigated with 16 trial ultimately going to the jury for a decision. Merck prevailed in 11 of the 16 trials.
Despite the settlement, Merck has not admitted that that Vioxx caused injuries. Each claim under the settlement was analyzed under an protocol that weighed such factors as a user’s age, their length of use, and their health risks such as obesity or hypertension. The individual extraordinary payout for a heart attack case was capped at $600,000.
Pharmaceutical litigation is a complex area of law that combines dense regulation, developing science, and multi-jurisdictional questions of law. Most cases involving claims of drug injury and pharmaceuticals become centralized in the federal multidistrict litigation process. Pharmaceutical litigation involving injury claims are not in most cases not class action lawsuits, but they are very similar.
Due to the volume of cases and number of similar issues, most pharmaceutical cases are handled through Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). The multidistrict litigation procedure is guided by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, where the case is centralized before one federal Judge for the purposes of pre-trial discovery.
The MDL process is appropriate where there are one or more common questions of fact in multiple cases pending in different federal district courts. While there often are parallel state consolidated proceedings, the federal MDL process is generally supported by both Plaintiff and Defendants in these cases.
The MDL process allows for efficiency where there are millions of pages of documents, many expert witnesses across multiple disciplines from epidemiology, pharmacology, toxicology and the specific discipline for the relevant mechanism of injury.
Although 28 USC 1407 does not specify a specific number of cases required before the formation of an MDL is appropriate, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation reviews the Motions and conducts a hearing to determine whether consolidation is ripe given the number and location of the pending cases.
Most people understand what a class action lawsuit is, and fewer are aware of what an MDL refers to. It is important for a claimant to know, however, that an MDL is not a class action, as the term is often misapplied in this context, and the original court (home or transferee jurisdiction) retains the authority to present the case at trial.
In most MDL settings, the case is resolved by way of settlement or a summary judgment motion on the questions of science (i.e., Daubert Motion). If either settlement or dismissal on Motion occurs, the case is not remanded to the originating court. If the case is not resolved at the MDL, then the case may be remanded to original jurisdiction for additional discovery on the case specifics and ultimately trial.
Our Victories
The Lyon Firm aggressively, professionally, and passionately advocates for injured individuals and families against companies due to a drug to obtain just compensation under the law.
IN RE: VIOXX
Nationwide Consolidation in U.S. District Court, E. Dist. of LA.
This pharmaceutical case involved claims that the blockbuster painkiller was causing heart attacks and strokes in consumers. The FDA ultimately recalled the medication. Merck settled the outstanding Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion following multiple trials in both state and federal courts. Joe Lyon was co-counsel in a number of individual claims that were successfully resolved in the federal MDL. The funds received for Lyon Firm clients helped several elderly clients with additional medical and home health care.
IN RE: TRASYLOL
Nationwide Consolidation in Civil Complex Litigation Center Philadelphia, PA.
A pharmaceutical case involving claims that a popular surgical medication was causing kidney failure and death. The FDA recalled the medication in question, but not before thousands of patients died due to related complications. Bayer resolved certain claims for $60 Million for patients who suffered kidney failure and death as a result of using the drug Trasylol. Joseph Lyon represented a widow from Kentucky whose husband died due to kidney failure following the administration of Trasylol. The recovered funds assisted the surviving family members in resuming farming operations.
Pharmaceutical Litigation Information Center
- Valsartan
- Abilify
- Compounding Contamination
- Zofran
- Levaquin
- Belviq
- Ambien
- Losartan
- Uloric
- Nuplazid
- Cipro
- Rexulti
- Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
- Risperdal
- Defective Vaccines
- Effexor
- Invokana
- Avelox
- Prilosec
- Pradaxa
- Onglyza
- Metformin
- Truvada
- Noroxin
- Xarelto
- Xeljanz
- Zantac
- Tasigna
- Fluoroquinolones
- Montelukast
- Anti-Depressants
-
-
Answer a few general questions.
-
A member of our legal team will review your case.
-
We will determine, together with you, what makes sense for the next step for you and your family to take.
-