What is the Status of the Bladder Cancer Litigation for Actos?


As of mid-2013, thousands of individuals throughout the United States have filed an Actos lawsuit over bladder cancer caused by the popular diabetes drug. The first cases are now being prepared for early trial dates, yet new cases continue to be filed.

Concerns about the link between Actos and bladder cancer gained national attention when an Actos recall was issued in Germany and France. However, the FDA first began investigating the potential risk of bladder cancer from side effects of Actos in September 2010, and our lawyers have been reviewing potential cases since that time for individuals who may be entitled to financial compensation through Actos litigation.

On December 29, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that the Actos bladder cancer litigation pending in the federal court system will be centralized before Judge Rebecca F. Doherty in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings and any early bellwether trials, which are often useful in facilitating a potential Actos settlement agreement.

As of mid-May 2013, more than 1,500 lawsuits have been filed in the federal Actos MDL and other cases are pending in various state courts. The Actos lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. estimate that the ultimate number of lawsuits over bladder cancer from Actos will eventually top 3,000.

In addition to the federal bladder cancer litigation for Actos, a number of complaints have been filed at the state court level. The litigation in California state court has been coordinated in Los Angeles Superior Court in California, before Judge Carl J. West.

In early 2013, the first Actos trial in the country began, involving a complaint filed by Jack Cooper, who was diagnosed with bladder cancer after using Actos for two years. After two months of trial, a Los Angeles jury found that Takeda failed to adequately warn about the potential side effects of Actos and awarded $6.5 million in damages. However, the trial judge subsequently overturned the damage award after excluding expert witness testimony that established that this specific plaintiff’s bladder cancer diagnosis was caused by Actos.

In the federal court system, a small group of cases are being prepared for early trial dates, with a first case scheduled to begin in January 2014 and a second case in April 2014.

Although the litigation over Actos has been consolidated in many courts, each claim remains an individual complaint. While most people confuse the federal MDL process with an Actos class action lawsuit, each claim must be resolved individually and each claimant has the opportunity to accept or reject any settlement offer for bladder cancer from Actos. If the litigation is not resolved during pretrial proceedings, each case would be remanded back to the federal district court where it was originally filed for an individual trial.


Potential lawsuits are being reviewed by the attorneys at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. for individuals throughout the United States who have been diagnosed with bladder cancer after using Actos. Long-term use of the popular diabetes drug has been linked to an increased risk of bladder tumors, and financial compensation may be available as a result of Takeda Pharmaceuticals failure to adequately warn consumers or the medical community.

All lawsuits are pursued by our law firm under a contingency fee agreement, which means that there are never any out of pocket expenses participate in the litigation and there are no attorney fees unless a recovery is obtained. To review a potential case for yourself, a friend or family member, request a free consultation and claim evaluation.

Austin Kirk
Last Updated May 30th, 2013
No Comments

Add Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide contact information below and additional private comments if you want an attorney to contact you to review a potential case.

    The information below will not be published to this page.

  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

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