Contact Marin & Murphy
Marin & Murphy is licensed in South Carolina, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and works with lawyers licensed across the country.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in Virginia; a matter there would be handled with, or referred to, a lawyer licensed in that state.
Dupixent — CTCL Litigation
The Dupixent Litigation, Explained
Federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3180, most cases are in their earliest stages, and no settlement exists. Here is what is publicly known.
ACTIVE LITIGATION — NO SETTLEMENT. MDL 3180 underway · deadlines vary by state.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in Virginia; details below.
Partners
Stefanie A. Murphy & Matthew T. Marin
Super Lawyers® honorees · members of the American Association for Justice · concentrating in personal injury and mass-tort litigation.
No settlement has been reached in the Dupixent litigation, and most cases are in their earliest stages. Every case must be proven on its own facts. Whether any patient has a claim depends on the facts and the law of their state. The information below covers the litigation itself.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Virginia; details below.
In Virginia, as in every state, plaintiffs allege an association between Dupixent (dupilumab) and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma; no court has found Dupixent causes CTCL, and no settlement exists. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their medical records and the law of their state. The information below covers the litigation itself.
Current Status of the Dupixent CTCL Litigation
Dupixent (dupilumab), a Sanofi and Regeneron prescription biologic prescribed to patients in Virginia and nationwide, has been FDA-approved since March 2017 and now carries nine indications, including atopic dermatitis, asthma, and COPD. The order that matters for Virginia filings came in June 2026: the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the pending federal cases as MDL 3180 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi. The complaints in the consolidated Dupixent lawsuit allege that the drug is associated with an increased risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and that the manufacturers failed to warn patients and doctors. At least 36 identified member cases were on the MDL docket — the same proceeding a case from Virginia would join — as of September 15, 2026; the MDL 3180 tracker keeps the current count and its method. For Virginia claimants as for all others, no court has ruled on the merits and no settlement exists.
What Is Alleged, and What Has Not Been Established
The allegation — in Virginia as anywhere else — is an association, not an adjudicated fact. Published studies report a statistical association between dupilumab and CTCL — an association the study authors themselves note does not establish causation — and the FDA has identified a potential safety signal for CTCL that it is still evaluating. The Dupixent label dispensed in Virginia, as everywhere, carries no lymphoma or malignancy warning today. The FDA adverse event reports connected to this question are agency reports, not verified causes, and the courts have decided nothing on the merits — in Virginia or anywhere else.
A Virginia Resident’s Dupixent Case in MDL 3180
A Virginia resident filed Walker v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. directly in the District of New Jersey in July 2026 (No. 3:26-cv-08910, public docket), alleging Dupixent use for atopic dermatitis from October 2023 to August 2024 followed by a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma diagnosis; the complaint names Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Genzyme Corporation and is consolidated in MDL 3180. These are allegations from a complaint; no court has ruled on them, and no settlement exists.
Who Is Included in the Filed Cases?
People in the consolidated cases — a group any qualifying claimant from Virginia would join — used Dupixent and received a diagnosis of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or a related T-cell subtype during or after use. No minimum duration of Dupixent use is required — in Virginia or anywhere — and the group includes estate claims, brought under state wrongful-death and survival statutes, for patients who have died. Whether any individual’s circumstances resemble the filed cases is a question of medical records and state law, not of headlines — and for a Virginia resident, it is a question for an attorney licensed in Virginia.
Virginia’s Federal Courts and the Path to MDL 3180
Virginia is served by two federal district courts: the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. A Dupixent CTCL lawsuit filed there will not proceed on its own: these cases are centralized by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation as MDL 3180 before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, so a Virginia case is transferred to the MDL for coordinated pretrial proceedings — or, where the MDL court’s case-management orders permit, filed in the District of New Jersey directly. The destination is the same consolidated proceeding either way; a claim from Virginia stays an individual claim, because an MDL is not a class action.
Filing Deadlines Under Virginia Law
Virginia’s general statute of limitations for personal-injury claims is two years under Va. Code § 8.01-243(A). Virginia does not recognize a discovery rule for personal-injury claims: Va. Code § 8.01-230 provides that the right of action accrues from the date the injury is sustained ‘and not when the resulting damage is discovered.’ How a limitations period applies to any specific CTCL diagnosis depends on the dates in the medical records, the legal theory pleaded, and Virginia tolling and accrual doctrine. An attorney licensed in Virginia can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
A wrongful-death claim must be brought within two years of death by the personal representative (Va. Code §§ 8.01-244(B), 8.01-50).
How Common Is CTCL in Virginia?
Virginia is home to about 8.8 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 estimate). Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is rare — roughly 8.55 new cases per million person-years (SEER) — which works out to on the order of 75 new CTCL diagnoses across Virginia in a typical year. Because the disease is so rare, no statistic here answers an individual question; in Virginia, a single claim turns on medical records read against state law.
About Marin & Murphy Law Firm and Virginia
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is a personal-injury and mass-tort law firm; its attorneys’ individual admissions are listed at the bottom of this page, and this page is published as litigation information. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Virginia. The firm does not accept Virginia legal matters; inquiries from Virginia residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Virginia. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers. An attorney licensed in Virginia can evaluate whether a claim is timely and how Virginia law applies to a particular diagnosis.
Virginia Dupixent Litigation FAQs
Are there Dupixent lawsuits in Virginia courts?
For Virginia claimants as for everyone, the federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3180 in the District of New Jersey rather than proceeding separately around the country. A Dupixent CTCL case filed in a Virginia federal court is subject to transfer into that consolidated proceeding. This page does not track filings outside the federal system.
Who is included in the filed cases?
People in Virginia and nationwide who used Dupixent and were diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or a related T-cell lymphoma subtype during or after that use. No minimum duration of use applies; for patients in Virginia who have died, their estates bring claims under state wrongful-death and survival statutes.
Has any court found that Dupixent causes CTCL?
No. Plaintiffs allege an association. Published studies report a statistical association — one the study authors note does not establish causation — the FDA is still evaluating a potential safety signal, and Dupixent’s label, in Virginia and every state, currently contains no lymphoma warning.
Is there a Dupixent settlement?
No. There is no settlement and no merits ruling; in Virginia and everywhere else, the litigation is in its earliest stages. Any figure suggesting otherwise did not come from the docket — in Virginia or anywhere else.
What is the filing deadline for a Virginia Dupixent claim?
Filing deadlines come from Virginia statutes and court doctrine, and more than one rule can bear on when the period begins to run; the section above covers what is settled and what is not. An attorney licensed in Virginia can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
Does Marin & Murphy Law Firm accept Virginia cases?
No. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Virginia and does not accept Virginia legal matters; inquiries from Virginia residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Virginia.
Nearby states
What Federal Data Shows About Dupixent Use in Virginia
Dupixent (dupilumab) is widely prescribed in Virginia, most often for atopic dermatitis and other inflammatory conditions. Federal drug-utilization data gives a state-level picture of how commonly the medication is used:
From 2024 to 2025, reported Medicaid prescriptions in Virginia climbed roughly 23%. Medicaid outpatient data is only part of the picture: prescriptions billed to Medicare or private insurers are not counted here, so more residents of Virginia use Dupixent than these figures show. A small number of privacy-suppressed records are likewise excluded.
Sources: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, State Drug Utilization Data 2024 and 2025 (accessed August 21, 2026); In re: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3180, JPML Transfer Order, Schedule A (June 4, 2026). Utilization data reflects prescriptions reported by state Medicaid programs and is not evidence that any individual prescription caused injury.
Sources
- U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Pending MDL Dockets by MDL Number (August 3, 2026) — jpml.uscourts.gov
- MDL 3180 docket records — CourtListener dockets 72288297 (JPML) and 73443394 (D.N.J. 3:26-md-03180), reviewed September 15, 2026.
- Va. Code § 8.01-243(A) — Virginia statute of limitations discussed above.
- U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2024 Population Estimates (NST-EST2024), resident population as of July 1, 2024.
- SEER program data: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma incidence ≈8.55 cases per million person-years.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in Virginia. The firm does not accept Virginia legal matters; inquiries from Virginia residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Virginia. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers.
Attorney admissions: Matthew T. Marin — RI, CT, MA, SC, U.S.D.C. D.R.I. · Stefanie A. Murphy — RI, CT, MA, U.S.D.C. D.R.I./D.Conn./D.Mass.
Attorney Advertising.
Attorney Advertising. This page is for general information and is not legal advice; reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no attorney-client relationship is formed until a written engagement agreement is signed. Marin & Murphy Law Firm attorneys are licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina; the firm’s mass-tort practice is directed from its Charleston, South Carolina office. Responsible attorney: Matthew T. Marin, 997 Morrison Drive, Suite 200, Charleston, SC 29403. Cases may be handled together with co-counsel; whether a claim is accepted is determined after review. No representation is made that the quality of legal services is greater than that of other lawyers. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome; every case depends on its own facts.
Where we practice
Marin & Murphy Law Firm attorneys are licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. We are not licensed in Virginia. The firm does not accept Virginia legal matters; inquiries from Virginia residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Virginia. This page is attorney advertising and is provided for general information; it is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship.