First Actos Bladder Cancer Trial Begins in Los Angeles

Posted on March 4, 2013

The first of nearly 3,000 lawsuits over the diabetes drug Actos has gone to trial, with the attorney for a 78-year-old man who now has bladder cancer claiming that the manufacturer of the blockbuster drug, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, failed to warn doctors of the cancer risk associated with the drug.

In opening statements at a Los Angeles state court, the plaintiff’s attorney told the jury that his client’s doctor was never told about bladder cancer risks associated with Actos during any of the alleged 195 visits company representatives made to the physician’s office to discuss Takeda’s products.

The pharmaceutical liability lawsuit contends that Takeda not only downplayed the risks of Actos, but also misled U.S. regulators about the potential dangers the diabetes drug posed. The suit alleges that Takeda started selling the drug in 1999, but waited until 2011 to inform the man’s doctor about Actos’ risks — the same year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked the manufacturer to strengthen its warnings about Actos’ bladder cancer risks.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2011.

“[My client] will be dead in the next seven months from bladder cancer,” the man’s attorney told the jury. “A reasonable pharmaceutical company would have warned doctors.”

An attorney for Takeda denied the plaintiff’s claims, saying that his bladder cancer was not caused by Actos, but most likely developed because of his age, gender, and the fact that he had been a smoker for many years.

The Actos bladder cancer attorneys in Florida at Farah & Farah will be keeping close tabs on this trial and will continue to discuss information on its developments. If you believe you’ve developed bladder cancer due to Actos use, contact our experienced legal team today. You may be entitled to compensation for damages. Contact us online or call us at (800) 533-3555. Let’s review your case and let us explain your legal rights.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.