Find Out If You Have a Case

Free, confidential review by Attorney Matthew T. Marin. Prefer to talk? Call (888) 348-2735.

Super Lawyers® 2014–2024CALL 24/7(888) 348-2735

Dupixent Lawsuit — Free, Confidential Case Review

Lost a loved one to lymphoma after Dupixent?

Claims can be brought through the estate. A steady, confidential review tells your family where things stand — with no obligation.

ACTIVE LITIGATION — NO SETTLEMENT. MDL 3180 underway · filing deadlines vary by state.

Were you — or someone you love — diagnosed with CTCL or another T-cell lymphoma after taking Dupixent?

Check if my case qualifiesfree · confidential · takes 2 minutes
I’m not sure of my exact diagnosis →

No documents needed · confidential · an answer either way · no fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

Or talk to a person now: (888) 348-2735 — answered 24/7

Stefanie A. Murphy & Matthew T. Marin

Partners

Every Dupixent inquiry gets a personal review — and an honest answer either way, free and without obligation.

Claims are brought against Sanofi and Regeneron, the makers of Dupixent — not against your doctor. Conversations are confidential. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers. No settlement has been reached, and most cases are in their earliest stages; every case must be proven on its own facts. Attorney Advertising.

Lawsuits consolidated in MDL 3180 (D.N.J.) allege that Dupixent (dupilumab) is associated with an increased risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and that the manufacturers failed to warn about it. No court has ruled on these allegations, no settlement exists, and the litigation is in its earliest stages. Published studies report a statistical association — which the study authors themselves note does not establish causation — and the FDA has identified a potential safety signal it is still evaluating; Dupixent’s FDA label does not currently warn about lymphoma. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their medical records and the law of their state.

Who can bring a claim after a death?

State law decides this, and states do it differently. The common pattern is that the claim belongs to the estate and is brought by a personal representative — sometimes called an executor or administrator — appointed by a probate court. Many states also specify the family members on whose behalf the claim is brought, usually a spouse, children, or parents.

Families almost never have this sorted out when they first call, and there is no expectation that they should. Whether an estate exists, who would be appointed, and what your state requires are questions a lawyer answers after learning the facts. Nothing about the process asks a grieving family to arrive with paperwork in order.

What is different about a claim brought after a death?

Two differences matter, and both are procedural rather than medical. The underlying Dupixent lawsuit is the same one either way.

Who holds the claim. A living person brings their own case. After a death, the claim runs through the estate, which is why the personal-representative question comes up at all.

What the claim covers. Most states recognize two related but separate things: a survival claim, for what the person themselves experienced before death, and a wrongful-death claim, for what the family lost. Some states combine them; some keep them apart; the details vary considerably. This is described here in general terms because the accurate answer depends entirely on your state.

What does not change is the medical side. The diagnosis criteria are identical, including the full list of qualifying subtypes, and there is still no minimum length of Dupixent use.

What will you be asked about?

An intake conversation on this route covers a small, specific set of facts: the date of death; the cause or causes of death as they were recorded; where your loved one was living at the time; whether an estate has been opened; and whether a personal representative has been appointed.

Those last two questions are asked of everyone, and “no” and “I don’t know” are both complete answers. The questions exist to work out which state’s rules apply and what procedural steps would come next — not to test whether your family did something right.

Nobody will ask you to describe symptoms in the present tense, and nobody will ask you to characterize suffering. If a question is one you would rather not answer on a first call, say so and it moves on.

What records help, and what if you have none?

Four documents do most of the work: the death certificate, the pathology or biopsy report that established the lymphoma diagnosis, a pharmacy record showing Dupixent was filled, and treatment records from the oncology and dermatology practices involved.

You do not need to know which of these exist or where they are held. What helps most is the plainest kind of information: the names of the pharmacies your loved one used and roughly which cities they were in, the practice that prescribed the drug, the hospital or cancer center where they were treated, and whether a second opinion was sought anywhere else. From those names, the documents can be located and requested.

Very few families have all four. That is normal, and it is not disqualifying. With a signed authorization from the appropriate representative, records can be requested from the pharmacies and facilities directly. If you do happen to have things at home — the injection cartons, letters from the manufacturer or a copay program, insurance correspondence — it is worth putting them in one place; our page on what to save evidence explains what each item does. Missing papers do not end a case.

What if you are not certain the drug had anything to do with it?

Almost nobody is, and certainty is not what a review asks of you. Whether Dupixent caused or contributed to a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is precisely the contested question this litigation exists to test. No court has answered it. Published research reports an association and its own authors say that association does not establish causation.

So the question put to a family is narrower and answerable: was there Dupixent use, was there a qualifying diagnosis, and did the diagnosis come during or after that use. Those are records questions. Believing a theory is not a requirement, and being unsure is not a disqualification.

It also works the other way. Some families are certain, and have been for a long time. That certainty is not held against anyone either — it simply is not what the case will turn on. Medical records and scientific evidence are.

What about filing deadlines?

Every state sets its own, they differ, and for claims involving a death the clock may run from a different event than it would otherwise. We mention this once, plainly, because it is a fact about state law and you are entitled to know it exists — not to press you. Working out the rule that applies to your family is part of the review, and it costs nothing to have someone check it.

What does this process ask of you — and what does it not?

It asks for a conversation, and later, if a case goes forward, a signature on records authorizations. That is the extent of what is required of a family early on.

It does not ask you to decide anything on a first call. It does not ask you to gather documents before you reach out. It does not ask you to be certain the drug caused what happened — that is a contested question this litigation exists to test, and no court has resolved it. And it does not ask you to be ready on anyone else’s schedule. Families call two weeks after a death and two years after; both are fine.

If the person you are calling about is living, the do I qualify page covers that route instead.

What else do families ask about Dupixent claims after a death?