Doyle APC represents California residents harmed by dangerous prescription medications. With decades of experience holding major corporations accountable for defective products and California’s favorable legal framework for drug injury cases, we hold pharmaceutical companies accountable when they prioritize profits over patient safety.
Our firm has successfully represented hundreds of individuals injured by defective drugs and medical devices. We have secured significant recoveries against some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, and C.R. Bard.
Current Pharmaceutical Litigation
Our firm is actively handling and investigating prescription drug injury cases involving:
Dupixent Lymphoma Lawsuits
Dupixent (dupilumab), manufactured by Sanofi and Regeneron, is prescribed to treat eczema, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis. Recent studies have identified an association between Dupixent use and the development of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a rare and serious form of cancer affecting the skin. Lawsuits are being filed by patients who developed CTCL or other lymphomas after being prescribed Dupixent.
GLP-1 Weight Loss Drug Lawsuits
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), including Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy, Trulicity, Rybelsus, and Saxenda, have been linked to severe gastrointestinal complications. Patients have developed gastroparesis (stomach paralysis) and intestinal obstructions requiring emergency medical intervention and hospitalization. As of August 2025, more than 1,940 federal lawsuits have been consolidated in Pennsylvania, with thousands more under investigation.
Understanding Prescription Drug Defects
A prescription drug is considered defective when its potential risks outweigh its benefits to consumers. Despite rigorous FDA approval processes, dangerous drugs regularly reach the market due to inadequate testing, suppressed safety data, or corporate decisions that prioritize profits over patient safety.
The most common type of pharmaceutical defect involves failure to warn healthcare providers and patients about a drug’s serious risks. When manufacturers fail to adequately investigate their products, fail to report adverse events to the FDA, or minimize known dangers in their marketing materials, they make it impossible for doctors and patients to make informed decisions about whether the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks.
Types of Pharmaceutical Defects
Prescription drug injury cases typically involve one or more of the following:
Failure to Warn. Manufacturers have a legal duty to provide adequate warnings about their drugs’ known risks and side effects. When a pharmaceutical company fails to warn doctors and patients about serious dangers, whether through insufficient label warnings, misleading marketing materials, or suppression of adverse event data, they may be held liable for resulting injuries.
Design Defects. Some drugs are unreasonably dangerous as formulated. A drug may be defectively designed if there were safer alternative formulations available that could have provided similar therapeutic benefits with reduced risk.
Off-Label Marketing. While doctors may legally prescribe medications for “off-label” uses not approved by the FDA, manufacturers are prohibited from marketing their drugs for unapproved purposes. When pharmaceutical companies actively promote off-label uses without adequate evidence of safety and effectiveness, they may be held liable for resulting injuries.
California’s Legal Advantages in Prescription Drug Cases
California law provides significant advantages for prescription drug injury plaintiffs compared to many other states.
California’s Approach to the Learned Intermediary Doctrine
Most states follow the “learned intermediary doctrine,” which holds that pharmaceutical manufacturers satisfy their duty to warn by providing adequate information to prescribing physicians, who serve as intermediaries between the manufacturer and patient.
California applies a modified version of this doctrine that is more favorable to injured patients. Under California law, manufacturers must provide adequate warnings not only to physicians but also directly to patients through drug labeling and marketing materials. When pharmaceutical companies engage in direct-to-consumer advertising, as they routinely do for prescription medications, they assume a heightened duty to ensure their warnings are clear, prominent, and not contradicted by promotional messaging.
This legal framework makes it more difficult for drug manufacturers to defend against failure-to-warn claims in California courts, particularly when they have conducted aggressive marketing campaigns that downplay or obscure serious risks.
Strict Liability Standards
California applies strict liability principles to defective product cases, including pharmaceutical litigation. This means that injured patients do not necessarily need to prove that the manufacturer acted negligently. Instead, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the drug was defective, that they were injured while using it as intended, and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing their injury.
What Makes a Viable Prescription Drug Case
Not every adverse reaction to a medication gives rise to a legal claim. Pharmaceutical litigation requires establishing several key elements:
Causation. There must be credible scientific evidence linking the drug to the specific injury. This typically requires peer-reviewed medical studies, epidemiological data, or expert medical testimony establishing that the medication can cause the type of harm experienced.
Severity of Injury. Pharmaceutical litigation is complex and expensive to pursue. Cases typically require significant injuries that have resulted in substantial medical expenses, disability, lost earnings, or permanent impairment.
Inadequate Warnings. For failure-to-warn cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk but failed to provide adequate warnings to healthcare providers and patients.
Documented Medical Treatment. Comprehensive medical records documenting the diagnosis, treatment, and causal connection between the drug and the injury are essential.
Our Approach to Pharmaceutical Cases
Doyle APC takes a selective, strategic approach to pharmaceutical litigation. We focus on cases with strong scientific evidence of causation, serious injuries, and inadequate warnings from manufacturers.
Our firm has the resources and experience to take on major pharmaceutical companies and see cases through to trial if necessary. We work with leading medical experts to establish causation and demonstrate the extent of our clients’ injuries. We advance all litigation costs and expenses, assuming the financial risk so our clients can pursue justice without upfront costs.
All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing unless we secure compensation on your behalf.
Multi-District Litigation and Mass Tort Cases
Many prescription drug injury cases are consolidated into multi-district litigations (MDLs) in federal court. MDLs allow similar cases from across the country to be coordinated before a single judge for pretrial proceedings, making litigation more efficient while preserving each plaintiff’s individual claim.
Doyle APC has extensive experience representing clients in pharmaceutical MDLs. Our attorneys understand how these complex proceedings work, including bellwether trial selection, coordinated discovery, and the dynamics of negotiating settlements that address individual clients’ unique circumstances.
Time Limits for Filing Claims
California law imposes strict deadlines for filing pharmaceutical injury lawsuits. Generally, you must file a claim within two years from the date you discovered or reasonably should have discovered your injury and its connection to the medication.
Because pharmaceutical companies vigorously defend these cases and often raise statute of limitations arguments, it is important to contact an attorney as soon as you suspect your injury may be related to a prescription drug.
Other Pharmaceutical Litigation
Our firm has also been involved in litigation involving Suboxone sublingual film and dental injuries. The multidistrict litigation remains active in federal court with bellwether trials expected in 2026.
Free Case Evaluation
If you or a family member suffered serious complications while taking a prescription medication, contact Doyle APC for a free, confidential case evaluation. Our attorneys will review your situation, examine the available medical evidence, and provide an honest assessment of your potential claim.
We represent pharmaceutical injury clients throughout California and, when appropriate, nationwide.
There are no upfront costs or attorney fees unless we recover compensation on your behalf.
GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION