Elmiron Class Action Lawsuit vs. Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for Individual Injury Claims

By Austin Kirk
Posted February 18, 2021

ADD YOUR COMMENTS 1

April 2026 Update: Saiontz & Kirk is no longer filing new Elmiron lawsuits. This page is maintained for informational and historical purposes only.

Elmiron lawsuits were previously filed nationwide by former users of the bladder drug who alleged they developed retina damage known as pigmentary maculopathy after long-term use. As the number of claims grew, a panel of federal judges established consolidated pretrial proceedings for the lawsuits, known as a multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

Although the Elmiron litigation was sometimes referred to as an Elmiron class action lawsuit, there were important differences between a class action and the individual injury claims filed by former users. Each plaintiff in the MDL maintained an individual lawsuit and was required to establish that side effects of Elmiron caused their vision problems.

Former Elmiron users who pursued individual injury claims alleged they experienced vision problems such as:

• Blurry Vision
• Difficulty Seeing At Night or In Dim Light
• Dark Spots or Floaters in Vision
• Loss of Detail
• Retina Pigment Changes
• Blindness

All cases were handled on a contingency fee basis, which means there were no out-of-pocket costs associated with hiring our law firm and there are no attorney fees or expenses unless an individual recovery was obtained in your case.

Elmiron MDL vs. Class Action

Elmiron, also known as pentosan polysulfate sodium, was introduced in 1996 as a prescription treatment for interstitial cystitis and was widely used by individuals throughout the United States. Since there is no cure for the underlying bladder pain associated with the condition, many patients used the medication for years.

In June 2020, updated warnings about the potential link between vision problems and Elmiron were added to the drug label for the first time, including information about monitoring for pigmentary changes in the retina or vision injuries that may develop after long-term use. Elmiron lawsuits alleged that the drug makers knew or should have known about this risk earlier, but failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers and the medical community.

While some Elmiron class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of former users seeking reimbursement for money spent on the drug or medical monitoring, former users who claimed they suffered an actual vision injury generally pursued individual product liability lawsuits against the manufacturers.

Unlike a class action, where claims are handled through one or more class representatives, Elmiron injury claims were pursued individually because each plaintiff’s alleged damages depended on the specific circumstances of their case and the impact of the vision loss on their life.

After a large number of individual injury claims were filed in U.S. District Courts nationwide, each raising similar questions of fact and law, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the lawsuits before U.S. District Judge Brian R. Martinotti in the District of New Jersey as part of an Elmiron MDL. However, each claim remained an individual lawsuit.

Centralized pretrial proceedings are common in complex pharmaceutical litigation where many claims involve similar injuries allegedly caused by the same medication. The court coordinated discovery into common issues that applied to all claims and could schedule early bellwether trials to gauge how juries might respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

Although the cases were managed in a manner similar to a class action for pretrial purposes, each Elmiron claim remained an individual lawsuit. Each plaintiff was required to establish a link between their retina damage diagnosis and Elmiron use, as well as the amount of compensation they claimed to be entitled to receive.