We are happy to announce that we're celebrating 30 years! →

Actos Lawsuit Lawyers and Attorneys

Actos is a Type 2 diabetes drug manufactured by Takeda, a Japanese manufacturer, and marketed by Eli Lilly. In 2010, more than two million patients used it. In 2011, the FDA issued a warning that Actos may increase the risk of bladder cancer if it is used for over a year. However, it remains available in the United States. In a study of 193,000 patients, as our Actos lawyers are aware, those who took Actos for over a year experienced a 40% increase in the risk of suffering bladder cancer. If you experienced serious side effects after taking Actos or another defective drug, you should consult the product liability attorneys at Moll Law Group. We represent claimants nationwide, and billions of dollars have been recovered in cases in which we have been involved.

Thousands of Actos product liability and wrongful death lawsuits are pending in the U.S. In one lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer purposely destroyed several hard drives related to Actos and bladder cancer that would have damaged the manufacturer. In the spring of 2015, the manufacturer and its subsidiary reached an agreement that is expected to resolve most pending litigation. The settlement was for $2.4 billion (one of the largest in U.S. history), and more than 97% of plaintiffs opted into it. Takeda did not admit liability in connection with the settlement.

Establishing Responsibility for an Actos Lawsuit

Allegations against Takeda have included failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs have sought compensatory damages, including loss of consortium, as well as punitive damages with the assistance of Actos lawyers.

A pharmaceutical manufacturer may be held strictly liable for injuries arising out of its failure to warn of a dangerous side effect. A plaintiff needs to prove that:

  • The defendant is a manufacturer or otherwise in the chain of distribution;
  • The drug carried a risk of serious medical complications that were knowable in light of the knowledge generally accepted by the scientific community at the time of the drug’s manufacturing, distribution, or sale;
  • The risk of harm was a substantial danger when the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable way;
  • Ordinary consumers would not recognize the potential risks;
  • The defendant did not provide adequate warnings about the risks;
  • The plaintiff suffered serious harm; and
  • The lack of warnings was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

In most jurisdictions, a drug manufacturer is expected to warn doctors about potential side effects, since they are considered to be in the best position to assess whether a certain pharmaceutical is appropriate for a particular patient.

Most dangerous drug cases hinge on expert testimony. Among other things, in a failure to warn case, the expert will need to testify as to his or her opinions about causation. There must be sufficient scientific studies on the link between a pharmaceutical and an illness or injury for a plaintiff to prevail.

Consult a Knowledgeable Actos Attorney in Chicago

If you developed bladder cancer or another serious side effect due to the use of Actos, the product liability lawyers at Moll Law Group are available to help you pursue compensatory damages. These may include medical bills, lost income, out-of-pocket expenses, pain and suffering, and mental anguish. In some cases, it may be appropriate to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor who was provided with adequate warnings. Our lawyers represent consumers around the nation, including in states such as California, Florida, New York, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and Arizona. Call us at 312-462-1700 or contact us via our online form for a free consultation with an Actos attorney.

Client Reviews

"He’s not afraid to take on the big companies. He has sued Ford, he has sued Merck, Bridgestone, Firestone… He’s fearless. He’s relentless." Deane Brown
"He was able to richly bless us with some medical reimbursements for losing Hope that we didn’t expect. It didn’t replace Hope, it never will replace. But it just gave us a lot of blessing." Melanie Moul
"He was there not to do something for himself, he was there to help me with my problem. And that’s what he did, he took care of it." Anne Levy
"Ken is unique among attorneys that I've worked with because as he pursues cases, he's always focused on the individuals, strategizing ways to best serve the needs of the client. He's a lawyer for people." John Galarnyk
"He’s very kind, and he’s just someone that you can really count on. Always." Michael McStraw