Court Grants Mass Tort Status to Suits Over Breast Cancer Drug Taxotere
The court designated all cases involving allegations of injuries from Taxotere as multicounty litigation, and assigned the group to Superior Court Judge James Hyland in Middlesex County for centralized case management.
August 21, 2018 at 04:21 PM
4 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ordered consolidation of more than 350 suits over alleged side effects from breast cancer drug Taxotere.
The court designated all cases involving allegations of hair loss from Taxotere as multicounty litigation, and assigned the group to Superior Court Judge James Hyland in Middlesex County for centralized case management. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner approved the application on Aug. 17.
Rabner said the order would apply to Taxotere-related state court suits against Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Accord Healthcare, Sandoz, Hospira Worldwide, Pfizer, Actavis and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
The defendants took no position on the plaintiffs' application for mass tort status, said Rayna Kessler of Robins Kaplan in New York, who submitted it. Sanofi-Aventis and Sandoz are named as defendants in many of the New Jersey cases because they have U.S. headquarters in the state, Kessler said.
The plaintiffs lawyers said designating the suits as multicounty litigation would better enable them to coordinate with multidistrict litigation in federal court, overseen by U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Taxotere is not sold in generic form but is sold by multiple manufacturers who have received regulatory approval for their products under §505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, according to Kessler. That act permits an applicant to rely on findings of safety and effectiveness from studies conducted by other parties and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference.
A significant number of Taxotere cases were already before Hyland before the designation as a mass tort, but they are still in the earliest stages of litigation, said Kessler, who sought MCL status on behalf of a group of 12 plaintiffs lawyers. Besides Kessler's firm, plaintiffs lawyers bringing Taxotere cases in New Jersey include Mazie, Slater, Katz & Freeman of Roseland; Napoli Shkolnik of Melville, New York; Cohen Placitella Roth of Philadelphia; Berezofsky Law Group of Cherry Hill; Pogust Braslow & Millrood of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania; Burnett Law Firm of Houston; and Simmons Hanley Conroy of New York.
According to court documents, the Food and Drug Administration approved Taxotere in 1996 for breast cancer treatment. Its labeling indicated that the drug could cause temporary hair loss in users, but that the hair grows back when use is discontinued. In 2015, defendant Sanofi Aventis changed its label to say that cases of permanent hair loss have been reported by users of Taxotere.
But the suits claim that Sanofi and Sandoz knew much earlier that Taxotere may cause permanent hair loss, according to court documents. A study of 1,060 users between 1999 and 2003 showed that 9.2 percent had persistent hair loss for 10 years or longer, according to the plaintiffs. And in 2006, an oncologist from Denver, Scot Sedlacek, presented a study showing 6.3 percent of one group of subjects had poor hair regrowth, according to court papers, which also cited similar findings in a 2009 article in the British Journal of Dermatology, and a March 2010 article in the Toronto Globe and Mail.
Women who undergo treatment for breast cancer consider hair loss the most traumatic side effect of their treatment, according to studies cited by plaintiffs in court documents. The chance of hair loss causes 8 percent of women with breast cancer to choose to forgo treatment, and women with hair loss may experience a lost sense of femininity, attractiveness and self-confidence, which remains even if hair grows back, the plaintiffs claim in court papers.
A Sanofi-Aventis spokeswoman, Anna Robinson, said in a statement about the multicounty litigation designation for Taxotere that “We fully anticipated and expected this consolidation in New Jersey and have utmost confidence in the New Jersey judiciary that this litigation will be managed fairly.”
A Sandoz representative did not respond to a request for comment about the designation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
4 minute readJudge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
‘The Decision Will Help Others’: NJ Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Div. in OPRA Claim Over Body-Worn Camera Footage
5 minute readLongtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250