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
© 2024 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 AllMeet the Judges: Senate Confirms 7 Superior Court Nominees in Final 2024 Session
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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