Valsartan Cancer Lawsuit Settlement Updates

The Valsartan lawsuits are moving forward, with the first trial anticipated in 2025. Valsartan, a common medication for high blood pressure marketed under names like Diofan and Exforge, was recalled due to contamination with NDMA, a probable carcinogen. This led to over 1,300 lawsuits from individuals who developed cancer after using Valsartan for an extended period. These cases are consolidated into an MDL class action lawsuit (MDL No. 2875).

Nguyen Injury Lawyer is actively involved in Valsartan cancer lawsuits across the country and is still accepting new claims. If you have used Valsartan regularly and subsequently developed cancer, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact us for a free consultation online or call our attorneys at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Valsartan News and Updates 2025

Here are the latest updates from the Valsartan MDL:

September 7, 2025: Case Count

The MDL now includes 1,378 lawsuits as the initial bellwether trial approaches.

September 2, 2025: Plaintiffs Seek Sanctions Over Destroyed Valsartan Records

Plaintiffs have requested sanctions against Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical, alleging the company intentionally destroyed vital discovery materials related to the case. These materials include certificates of analysis and safety data for contaminated Valsartan batches, which the plaintiffs argue should have been preserved once litigation was foreseeable.

Zhejiang Huahai claims the destruction was part of routine business practices and not intentional spoliation. The judge will now determine if the loss of these records warrants sanctions. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could significantly impact evidentiary presumptions and trial strategy, as the missing data directly relates to the company’s knowledge of carcinogenic impurities in its drugs.

July 17, 2025 – The Path to Trial

For those who developed cancer after taking contaminated Valsartan, the first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on September 8, 2025. The plaintiff is an Alabama resident who developed liver cancer after taking the recalled drug. This individual’s experience mirrors that of thousands of others who unknowingly ingested a medication tainted with cancer-causing chemicals.

Special Master Thomas L. Vanaskie, a retired judge overseeing the pretrial process, has approved a schedule that advances the litigation. All parties have agreed to the timeline, which includes:

• Final responses to motions for summary judgment and efforts to dismiss expert witnesses due by July 17.
• Motions in limine, seeking to limit trial presentations, due by July 21.
• A joint final pretrial order due on August 11, followed by pretrial briefs by August 14.
• Witness and exhibit lists to be submitted by August 26.
• A pretrial video conference on August 28.
• The first trial begins in October.

July 8, 2025 – Second Wave Also Getting Ready for Trial

The Valsartan MDL now consists of 1,342 lawsuits.

While Nguyen Injury Lawyer is not seeing a large influx of new cases, we are still receiving inquiries due to the latency period between exposure and cancer diagnosis. We anticipate a limited number of additional cases.

July 2, 2025 – Second Wave Also Getting Ready for Trial

In the Valsartan MDL (No. 2875), overseen by Chief Judge Renée Marie Bumb in the District of New Jersey, an updated case management order has been issued for the second wave of bellwether trials involving four plaintiffs.

These plaintiffs allege personal injuries resulting from contaminated batches of valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan. Special Master Thomas I. Vanaskie established a revised schedule reflecting a joint agreement between plaintiffs and defendants. This schedule outlines a coordinated timeline for fact discovery, expert disclosures, motions practice, and trial preparation. Fact-specific discovery is set to close by June 23, 2025, with expert disclosures staggered through August and expert depositions concluding by September 19, 2025.

Key pretrial deadlines include deposition designations by September 30, Daubert and summary judgment motions due by October 8, 2025, and motion in limine filings tentatively set for December 15. Trial selection will occur three business days after the court rules on dispositive and Daubert motions.

Pretrial order submissions are due January 15, 2026, pending confirmation of the trial date. These Wave 2 cases are a significant step in assessing liability and valuation theories related to contaminated generic ARBs and their alleged links to cancer and other adverse health effects.

May 28, 2025 – Track 2 Cases

A new order establishes an amended case management schedule for four “Wave 2” bellwether trials: Garcia v. Zhejiang Huahai, Lee v. Zhejiang Huahai, Smalls v. Zhejiang Huahai, and Suits v. Zhejiang Huahai. These cases were selected to follow the first Valsartan bellwether trial, scheduled for September 2025, involving an Alabama man who developed liver cancer after using contaminated Valsartan.

The Wave 2 schedule sets key deadlines: case-specific fact discovery will close June 9, 2025. Expert reports and depositions will run through August. A joint final pretrial order is due November 24. While trial dates for Wave 2 have not been set, proceedings are expected to reach a jury by mid-2026. The timeline may shift depending on the Court’s scheduling.

These bellwether trials are designed to gauge jury response to common evidence and testimony. While their outcomes are non-binding, they will influence settlement negotiations. If the first bellwether trial does not lead to a global settlement, the judge intends to maintain pressure by advancing a second group of lawsuits toward trial. Should those efforts fail, Judge Bumb is expected to begin remanding hundreds of individual Valsartan cancer lawsuits to U.S. District Courts nationwide for separate jury trials. We anticipate that this litigation will settle before individual trials become necessary.

May 2, 2025 – 12 New Cases Join MDL

Twelve new lawsuits joined the Valsartan litigation this month, bringing the total to 1,322. This increase is notable, given the litigation’s maturity. However, it is not unusual when injuries involve latent diseases like cancer. Although the contaminated drugs were removed from the market years ago, victims are often diagnosed long after exposure. Many plaintiffs are only now connecting their cancer to years of unknowingly taking tainted Valsartan. Even with manufacturing problems resolved, litigation continues because the damage has already been done.

April 1, 2025 – MDL Update

Seven new cases were added to the Valsartan MDL in March, following eight in February. The total now stands at 1,303.

March 28, 2025 – New Order

Chief Judge Renée Marie Bumb issued Case Management Order No. 38 in MDL No. 2875 to address deficiencies in product identification for personal injury claims. This issue has been ongoing in the litigation.

Under this order, if a plaintiff names a manufacturer as a defendant but lacks documentary evidence proving they used that manufacturer’s product, the defendant may serve a deficiency notice through MDL Centrality. The plaintiff then has 30 days to resolve the issue by withdrawing the deficiency notice or voluntarily dismissing the manufacturer from the lawsuit.

If the issue remains unresolved after two consecutive case management conferences, the defendant may request an Order to Show Cause, requiring the plaintiff to justify why their claim against that manufacturer should not be dismissed with prejudice.

This order means plaintiffs must provide proof that the specific manufacturer they are suing made the product they used. If a manufacturer disputes their involvement, they will send a deficiency notice, giving the plaintiff 30 days to provide evidence or voluntarily dismiss that defendant. If the issue remains unresolved after two case management conferences, the manufacturer can request a court order forcing the plaintiff to justify why their claim should not be dismissed permanently. Plaintiffs must have clear records, such as pharmacy receipts or medical records, linking their drug use to the correct manufacturer to avoid delays or dismissal of their case.

March 5, 2025 – MDL Adds 8 Cases

Eight new cases were added to the Valsartan MDL during February, one more than in January. There are now 1,303 pending cases in the MDL.

March 4, 2025 – Path to Trial

The Valsartan cancer lawsuits are approaching a critical point, with the first bellwether trial set for September 8, 2025.

A Special Master overseeing the litigation has issued a schedule to prepare the case, which involves an Alabama man who developed liver cancer after using recalled versions of the blood pressure drug. With over 1,300 cases consolidated in New Jersey under Judge Renee M. Bumb, this first trial will serve as a test case, helping both sides assess potential jury responses to the evidence.

While some manufacturers have settled claims, others have resisted, prompting the court to proceed with bellwether trials. If this case does not lead to broader settlements, a second wave of trials is being prepared, and Judge Bumb could eventually send cases back to federal courts nationwide for individual trials. The legal battle is ongoing, and as key deadlines approach—including expert discovery concluding by May 8 and final pretrial motions due in July—this upcoming trial could significantly influence the future of Valsartan cancer litigation.

The next case management conference is set for March 28th.

February 1, 2024 – MDL Case Count

The Valsartan MDL, now over five years old, added seven new cases in January, consistent with the previous month. The total case count is 1,295. While new filings have slowed compared to earlier phases, Nguyen Injury Lawyer continues to receive calls from individuals diagnosed with cancer after long-term Valsartan use. Given the latency period for NDMA-related cancers, many potential plaintiffs are only now being diagnosed and connecting their diagnoses to contaminated Valsartan.

January 16, 2025 – Valsartan Settlement

A motion was filed in the MDL yesterday by plaintiffs’ lawyers for Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan claims, seeking court approval to establish a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) for Hetero settlement. The QSF is a financial mechanism to manage and distribute settlement funds in large-scale litigation cases.

The motion requests court authorization to create a Qualified Settlement Fund to manage settlement payouts for plaintiffs in the Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan MDL. The fund will comply with Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code, ensuring proper tax treatment and oversight.

Fund Administration Details

The following appointments have been made for the administration of the settlement fund:

Fund Administrator: EAG Gulf Coast, LLC will be responsible for overseeing the fund’s administration, including making payments and ensuring compliance.

Custodian: Western Alliance Bank will manage the fund’s financial assets, ensuring investments adhere to strict safety standards.

Oversight:

• The court will retain jurisdiction over the fund to guarantee adherence to legal and administrative requirements.
• Quarterly statements will be prepared to monitor receipts, investments, and distributions.

Attorney Fee Structures

The motion allows for structured settlements or deferred compensation agreements for attorneys’ fees, providing potential tax benefits for participating counsel.

Investment of Funds

Settlement funds will be invested in low-risk financial instruments, such as U.S. Treasury securities or highly-rated money market accounts, to preserve capital while generating modest returns.

Fund Closure

Once all distributions are completed, the Fund Administrator will conclude operations and seek discharge from further responsibilities.

January 7, 2025 – Five New Cases Added to MDL

In December, the Valsartan class action MDL saw the addition of five new cases, matching the previous month’s increase. The total number of pending cases in the MDL now stands at 1,288.

January 6, 2025 – Trial Dates Confirmed

The court finalized the selection of five cases on December 31, 2024, for the second round of bellwether trials. These selections followed a preliminary decision on December 16, 2024, and were influenced by input from both sides through written submissions and a conference call. The selected cases include:

• Dufrene, Case No. 1:19-cv-15633
• Garcia, Case No. 1:20-cv-07957
• Smalls, Case No. 1:20-cv-08199
• Estate of Meeks, Case No. 1:19-cv-16209
• Suits, Case No. 20-cv-06547

Counsel for both parties must be prepared to present any objections to these cases during a status conference scheduled for January 9, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., conducted via Teams.

December 4, 2024 – Five New Cases in MDL

November was a relatively quiet month for the Valsartan MDL, with only five new cases added, marking a 0.4% increase. The total number of pending cases is now 1,283. Nguyen Injury Lawyer is still accepting new clients, though the majority of potential claims have already been filed.

December 1, 2024 – New Trial Date Announced

The trial has been rescheduled for September 8, 2025, a later date than initially anticipated. The revised schedule is as follows:

Event	Date
Deadline to amend Plaintiff Fact Sheet	12/2/2024
Close of case-specific fact discovery	2/14/2025
Deadline for Plaintiff to designate experts and serve expert report(s)	2/28/2025
Deadline for Defendants to designate experts and serve expert report(s)	3/31/2025
Depositions of experts	4/1/2025 – 4/28/2025
Close of expert discovery	4/28/2025
Deadline for parties to exchange deposition designations	5/1/2025
Deadline to file: (i) Rule 702 motions; and (ii) summary judgment motions	5/12/2025
Deadline to submit deposition designations, objections, and counter-designations to the Court	5/30/2025
Deadline to file oppositions to: (i) Rule 702 motions; and (ii) summary judgment motions	6/16/2025
Deadline to file replies in further support of: (i) Rule 702 motions; and (ii) summary judgment motions	7/2/2025
Deadline to file motions in limine	7/14/2025
Deadline to file oppositions to motions in limine	7/31/2025
Deadline to submit joint final pretrial order	8/11/2025
Deadline to file pretrial briefs	8/14/2025
Deadline to file: (i) joint proposed jury instructions; (ii) joint proposed jury questionnaire; and (iii) joint verdict sheet	8/18/2025
Deadline to file responsive papers to pretrial briefs	8/21/2025
Deadline to submit: (i) witness lists; and (ii) exhibit lists	8/26/2025
Pretrial conference (via Zoom)	8/28/2025
Trial begins	9/8/2025

November 30, 2024 – Case Management Conference

A crucial case management conference in the ongoing MDL is scheduled for December 4, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. via Microsoft Teams. Special Master Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie will preside over the conference, addressing key issues such as jurisdictional matters related to Track One bellwether cases and the parties’ submissions concerning their Lexecon waivers.

November 1, 2024 – MDL Adds Eight Cases

The Valsartan class action MDL saw an increase of eight new cases last month, bringing the total number of pending cases to 1,278. Nguyen Injury Lawyer remains available to assist with new cases in this mature litigation, although opportunities are becoming less frequent.

October 28, 2024 – First Valsartan Trial Set

An Alabama resident diagnosed with liver cancer is slated to be the first plaintiff in a Valsartan lawsuit to proceed to trial. The case alleges that the plaintiff developed liver cancer due to carcinogenic impurities, including NDMA and NDEA, found in generic versions of the blood pressure medication.

October 20, 2024 – Revised Litigation Plan

The U.S. District Judge overseeing the federal Valsartan lawsuits has postponed the initial bellwether trial, which was originally scheduled for this month. The initial trial was to involve a third-party payer claim, lacking a personal injury plaintiff diagnosed with cancer. The judge has revised the plan to select a new personal injury case for the first trial, focusing on a plaintiff diagnosed with cancer following exposure to recalled Valsartan.

October 1, 2024 – MDL Case Count Update

In September, the Valsartan class action MDL added just six new cases, bringing the total number of pending cases to 1,270.

September 9, 2024 – Allocation of Sanction Fees

Plaintiffs have been awarded $309,130 in attorneys’ fees and $41,399.20 in costs as monetary sanctions against ZHP, compensating for time spent addressing issues related to the Baohua Chen deposition and missing document production. These funds are designated for the reimbursement of common benefit time, rather than work on any specific plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys plan to file a motion to designate these awarded fees and expenses as common benefit reimbursement, to be managed by the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for the benefit of all plaintiffs involved.

September 8, 2024 – Trial Length Concerns

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have expressed concerns that the current trial schedule of 3.5 weeks is insufficient given the complexity of the case. They have proposed starting the trial earlier or allocating more time to accommodate witness testimonies and defense arguments.

September 3, 2024 – MDL Adds Seven Cases

The Valsartan MDL saw an increase of seven new cases last month, bringing the total number of pending cases to 1,264.

August 26, 2024 – Amendments to Special Master Order No. 100

The court has issued an order addressing multiple motions related to Special Master Order No. 100 in the ongoing litigation. The defendants—Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical, Solco Healthcare, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Torrent Pharmaceuticals—had filed motions seeking to reverse or modify the Special Master’s Order. The plaintiffs also filed a motion requesting modifications to the same order.

After conducting a de novo review of the motions and the Special Master’s findings, the court made the following decisions: Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical’s motion was denied, while the plaintiffs’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. Additionally, the motions filed by Teva and Torrent were granted, as predicted in the August 3 update.

The jury instructions were revised to address issues related to the deposition of Baohua Chen, President of Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical, who did not appear for a deposition as ordered by the court. The revised instructions allow the jury to infer that Chen’s deposition testimony might have been unfavorable to the defendants, particularly regarding their knowledge of the contamination in Valsartan, a key issue in the case. Further details can be found in the July 24 update.

August 20, 2024 – Upcoming Hearing

A hearing is scheduled for Friday to resolve various disputes between the parties.

August 15, 2024 – Focus on Trial

The litigation is now primarily focused on the first bellwether trial scheduled for November.

August 5, 2024 – Zhejiang Challenges Sanctions

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical has responded to the sanctions order with a 31-page motion.

Their argument suggests that the jury should determine the appropriateness of the discovery violations, which contradicts the court’s previous rulings on these issues.

They also contend that the sanctions will complicate the legal proceedings and could necessitate a mini-trial on matters already decided by the court, potentially prolonging the litigation and diverting attention from the main issues at trial. The rationale behind this argument is somewhat unclear.

The court will hold a hearing on September 3 to hear ZHP’s arguments, but Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes it is unlikely to be successful. The court did not impose these sanctions lightly and likely considered the best way to address ZHP’s non-compliance.

August 3, 2023 – Clarification of Jury Instruction

Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals, Actavis, and Torrent are seeking a minor revision to the adverse inference jury instruction related to Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical, as discussed in the July 24 update.

This instruction was part of the sanctions imposed on ZHP due to their failure to make Baohua Chen, ZHP’s CEO, available for a deposition as ordered by the court. The current instruction allows the jury to infer that Mr. Chen’s absent testimony would have been unfavorable to the defendants if they find he could have been produced and his testimony would have been relevant.

Teva and Torrent are specifically requesting that references to “defendants” in the jury instruction be changed to “ZHP” to avoid confusion and potential prejudice against them, as they were not involved in the discovery disputes that led to the sanction against ZHP.

Nguyen Injury Lawyer anticipates that this motion will be granted.

August 2, 2024 – Valsartan MDL Case Count

The Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products MDL-2875 saw a slight percentage increase in active cases from July to August 2024. The number of active cases is now 1,257, up three from last month. This is a mature litigation, making significant increases in case counts unlikely.

July 24, 2024 – Significant Sanctions Ruling

The court has addressed the sanctions motion against Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (ZHP) for violating discovery orders. ZHP failed to comply with orders to produce documents and allow the deposition of its CEO, Baohua Chen.

While the MDL judge did not impose the harshest penalties, such as default judgment, the court will instruct the jury that they may infer the missing testimony and documents would have been unfavorable to ZHP. This is a substantial advantage for the plaintiffs.

The judge has outlined two key jury instructions:

Jury Instruction on Missing Testimony: The jury will be instructed that they may infer that Baohua Chen, CEO of ZHP, ‘s missing deposition testimony would have been unfavorable to the company. This inference is based on the assumption that Mr. Chen’s testimony would have provided relevant information regarding ZHP’s handling of the contamination and recall of its Valsartan product.

Jury Instruction on Missing Documents: The jury can also infer that missing documents, including a crucial email and internal report about contamination, would have been unfavorable to ZHP. The jury can consider whether these documents were under ZHP’s control and relevant to the case.

The presumption that the missing testimony and documents would have been unfavorable to ZHP is a significant advantage for the plaintiffs, allowing the jury to draw adverse inferences against ZHP based on the absence of this crucial evidence. If you have questions about this litigation, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX or visit https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact.

Impact of Withheld Evidence

The power of this instruction lies in its ability to shape the jury’s perception. It strongly implies that the evidence that was not provided could have been damaging to the defendant and supportive of the plaintiffs’ arguments. This helps jurors understand who is on which side in the case.

This instruction effectively shifts some of the responsibility to the defense. They now face the challenge of overcoming the negative impression created by the missing evidence, which appears to be a difficult task in this situation.

ZHP has also been ordered to pay the plaintiffs $309,130 in legal fees and $41,399.20 in additional costs.

Zhejiang’s legal team will begin the first Valsartan trial at a disadvantage, a situation that could have been easily avoided by demonstrating minimal adherence to the rules of discovery.

Recent Valsartan Lawsuit Filings and Court Decisions

July 17, 2024: New Valsartan Lawsuit

A new Valsartan lawsuit has been filed as part of the MDL, brought by a New Jersey resident against Zhejiang, Aurobindo, and other defendants.

This litigation generally addresses seven types of cancer: liver, kidney, stomach, colorectal, pancreatic, esophageal, and small intestine. There is scientific support for claims of colon cancer, which is the injury claimed by this plaintiff.

July 14, 2024: Reaffirmation of Prior Rulings

Judge Bumb’s recent order clearly indicates the court’s intention to uphold Judge Kugler’s decision to proceed with the TPP class trial, rejecting the defense’s requests for reconsideration. The court dismissed the defense’s arguments, deeming claims that a trial would “end in reversible error” as unhelpful.

The initial Valsartan trial is scheduled for November 2024. Judge Bumb has instructed all parties to be prepared to discuss motions in limine and the implications of the Mansouri study at the next conference. The study, titled “N-nitrosodimethylamine-Contaminated Valsartan and Risk of Cancer,” by Imène Mansouri et al., was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association. The defense believes the study warrants reopening Daubert hearings, a suggestion the plaintiffs dismiss, as the study found a higher risk of liver cancer and melanoma in patients exposed to contaminated valsartan.

It is evident that the first case will proceed to trial unless the defendants increase their settlement offer to a reasonable amount.

July 7, 2024 – Valsartan Settlement Negotiations with Teva and Torrent

The plaintiffs have engaged in direct settlement negotiations with Teva and Torrent, including an unsuccessful in-person mediation with the Special Masters on January 26, 2024. The plaintiffs are prepared to resume discussions with Teva and Torrent.

Settlement discussions with ZHP, a primary defendant in these cases, have stalled. Achieving a fair Valsartan settlement with them appears unlikely without favorable verdicts at trial.

June 26, 2024 – Plaintiffs Seek Financial Information for Punitive Damages

As the case management conference approaches, the plaintiffs are requesting that the defendants provide financial information relevant to determining punitive damages in the Valsartan case. After learning on February 20, 2024, that the defense would not seek to bifurcate the trial to address punitive damages, the plaintiffs promptly requested financial documents on February 23, 2024.

The requested documents include financial statements, tax returns, bank statements, asset and income documentation, liabilities, and details on trusts and other entities. The defendants have refused, arguing that the request was not timely. The plaintiffs assert that this financial information is essential for calculating punitive damages, as mandated by the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act. They argue that the request is both timely and necessary for providing current financial data for the trial.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order compelling the defendants to produce these documents at least 30 days before each trial or, at a minimum, provide updated net worth and gross revenue data with currency conversions.

The defendants are resisting this request due to their fear of punitive damages in this litigation, a fear that is not unfounded.

June 15, 2024 – Sanctions Hearing

A hearing on June 25th will address whether sanctions should be imposed for the failure to produce Baohua Chen, the CEO of ZHP, for a deposition.

This deposition is significant, as Chen was directly involved in key aspects of the case, including the development, manufacture, sale, and recall of ZHP’s Valsartan. According to the plaintiffs’ legal team at Nguyen Injury Lawyer, ZHP also failed to fully comply with court orders to produce relevant documents, including a July 27, 2017, email discussing contamination issues and an internal report on nitrosamine impurities. A central allegation in this case, which could lead to punitive damages, is that ZHP, under Chen’s direction, concealed their knowledge of the contamination from July 27, 2017, until Novartis discovered it in June 2018.

June 12, 2024 – New Prostate Cancer Case Filed

A man from Navajo, Arizona, recently filed a case in the Valsartan class action MDL. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff took generic Valsartan manufactured by Hetero Drugs, Ltd., and distributed by NuCare Pharmaceuticals. The lawsuit claims that the plaintiff developed prostate cancer due to NDMA contamination in the Valsartan and lists ten separate causes of action. The case was directly filed in the MDL using the Short-Form Complaint.

June 6, 2024 – Settlement Rumors

There is ongoing speculation about Valsartan settlements. Settlements have occurred with Hetero, a smaller defendant that sold contaminated Valsartan for a limited time and had lower levels of MDMA contamination. Will larger defendants follow suit in the near future? Settlement developments can be unpredictable, but in this litigation, a few significant verdicts might be necessary to prompt the defendants to offer fair settlement amounts.

May 23, 2024 – New Judge

Judge Renee M. Bumb has taken over the litigation after Judge Robert B. Kugler’s retirement.

Nguyen Injury Lawyer is still preparing groups of cases for trial to assess jury reactions to evidence and testimony, which will help determine settlement amounts. Whether these cases will reach trial or settle beforehand remains to be seen.

May 2, 2024 – Types of Cases Linked to Valsartan

The attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer are focusing on cases involving the following conditions:

• Bladder Cancer
• Liver Cancer
• Blood Cancer
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Multiple Myeloma, and Leukemia
• Colorectal/Colon/Rectal Cancer
• Gastric/Stomach Cancer
• Lung Cancer
• Pancreatic Cancer
• Intestinal Cancer
• Pharyngeal (throat)/Esophageal Cancer
• Prostate Cancer

April 25, 2024 – Where Are We on a Valsartan Settlement?

Some Valsartan settlements have been reached. Judge Kugler appointed two retired judges as mediators to help resolve the remaining lawsuits, with the hope that the remaining cases will soon settle.

March 27 2024 – Valsartan Motions

The MDL judge has ruled before the bellwether trial that drug labels stating “valsartan” implied a promise about the safety of these generic blood pressure medications, which is favorable news. However, whether this assurance was breached due to alleged contamination with a carcinogenic substance remains in dispute.

We anticipate that these cases will settle before going to trial. It is difficult to see any benefit for the defendants in not settling these cases, or at least settling the bellwether case to gain time. But the future remains to be seen.

January 10, 2024 – Experts in the Valsartan Litigation

The following experts have been named in the Valsartan MDL:

Defense Experts

Expert	Retained by	Report Date
Ali Afnan, PhD	ZHP	Amended Report 11 Jan 2023
Timothy Anderson, MS, MBA	Teva	12 Jan 2022
Steven Baertschi, PhD	Teva & ZHP	19 Dec 2022
Michael Bottorff, PharmD	Defendants	12 Jan 2022
John Flack, MD, MPH	Defendants	19 Dec 2022
Timothy Kosty, RPh, MBA	Defendants	19 Dec 2022
Akhilish Nagaich, PhD	Torrent	22 Dec 2022
Roger Williams, MD	Teva	Revised Report 28 Jan 2023
Fengtian Xue, PhD	ZHP	22 Dec 2022

Plaintiffs’ Experts

Expert	Retained by	Report Date
Susan Bain, DRsc	Plaintiffs	31 Oct 2022
Laura Craft, MPH, JD	Plaintiffs	31 Oct 2022
Stephen Hecht, PhD & Ramin Najafi, PhD	Plaintiffs	6 Jul 2021 & 31 Oct 2022
Kaliope Panagos, PharmD	Plaintiffs	31 Oct 2022
Laura Plunkett, PhD	Plaintiffs	31 Oct 2022
Philip Russ, BS	Plaintiffs	31 Oct 2022

The court compiled this list in its January 5th ruling.

January 5, 2024 – Expert Rulings

The court issued a significant ruling regarding the permissible scope of expert testimony at trial, carefully evaluating each expert’s report and allowing some opinions while excluding others.

Valsartan Recall: Understanding the Risks

What Happened?

In 2018, the FDA announced a major recall of prescription blood pressure and heart drugs containing the active ingredient valsartan, which is used in many brand-name and generic drugs (Diofan, Exforge, etc.) to treat hypertension and heart failure. It was discovered that certain manufacturing processes could lead to the presence of a dangerous impurity called N-nitrosodimethylamine (NMDA).

The drugs involved were generic versions of common blood pressure and heart failure medications. In July 2018, some companies initiated recalls after the FDA found trace amounts of NDMA in certain batches. NDMA is also present in water, food, and grilled meats. Later, in November 2018, more batches were recalled due to another harmful chemical, NDEA.

In October 2018, companies also recalled some batches of losartan and irbesartan, similar medications, due to possible NDEA contamination. A few batches of losartan were recalled for containing another impurity, NMBA. These drugs are in the same class as valsartan but are produced differently and experienced fewer recalls.

The Danger of NDMA

NMDA is a known human carcinogen. Valsartan medications containing this impurity have been linked to a specific pharmaceutical ingredient supplied by Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals, a Chinese company. Zhejiang Huahai manufactured the contaminated valsartan component and sold it to several U.S. pharmaceutical companies, including Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Solco Healthcare. Zhejiang Huahai identified NMDA impurities in its product, which ultimately led to the FDA recall.

All valsartan products made with ingredients from Zhejiang Huahai were immediately recalled for safety reasons. According to the FDA, the NDMA impurities in the drugs were “totally unexpected” and believed to result from changes in the manufacturing processes used by the Chinese company.

The FDA conducted a thorough investigation into the recalled products and the NDMA contamination, revealing that the contamination was more widespread than initially believed. At least one company in India that manufactures pharmaceutical ingredients was identified as a potential source of NDMA contamination.

List of Recalled Valsartan Drugs

Not all drugs containing Valsartan have been recalled, only those made with ingredients from Zhejiang Huahai. The list of all recalled drugs is below:

• Valsartan – Major Pharmaceuticals
• Valsartan – Solco Healthcare
• Valsartan – Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
• Valsartan/Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) – Solco Healthcare
• Valsartan/Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) – Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.

What is NDMA?

[The article continues to define NDMA in the next chunk]

If you or a loved one has been affected by contaminated Valsartan, please contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX for a free consultation or visit our website at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com. You can also reach us through our contact page: https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact.

NDMA Contamination in Valsartan Medications

NDMA, or N-nitrosodimethylamine, is a chemical compound that can emerge as a byproduct during the manufacturing of various products, including rubber tires, chemical pesticides, and processed fish. Trace amounts of NDMA are sometimes found in certain processed foods as a result of production methods.

NDMA is classified as a human carcinogen, meaning it is believed to have the potential to cause cancer in humans. Studies involving animals have indicated that NDMA exposure can lead to cancer in the liver, gastrointestinal system, and kidneys.

Research suggests that NDMA can form during manufacturing processes under specific conditions, especially when certain chemicals react at high temperatures. In the Valsartan litigation, the issue is thought to arise from changes in manufacturing processes that caused NDMA levels to exceed safe thresholds.

Potential Injuries from the Valsartan Products

The length of time that the recalled Valsartan products were available on the market while containing NDMA impurities remains unclear.

However, the recalled valsartan drugs are typically prescribed as long-term maintenance medications, taken daily for years. Consequently, many individuals may have ingested drugs contaminated with NDMA daily for an extended period. Long-term exposure to a known carcinogen poses a significant health risk. NDMA exposure has been linked to specific types of cancer, including:

• Bladder Cancer
• Stomach Cancer
• Liver Cancer
• Gastric Cancer
• Colorectal Cancer
• Kidney Cancer
• Pancreatic Cancer

Valsartan Class Action Lawsuit

The discovery of NDMA in Valsartan led to numerous product liability lawsuits. Since the 2018 recall, approximately 1,100 Valsartan lawsuits have been filed. Most of these lawsuits were consolidated into a class-action MDL in the District of New Jersey (Valsartan MDL).

Currently, over 1,000 active cases are pending in the Valsartan MDL. Plaintiffs are individuals who used prescription drugs containing valsartan to treat high blood pressure for a long time and were later diagnosed with one of the cancers linked to NDMA. They claim that their cancer was directly caused by the NDMA in the Valsartan medication. There is substantial scientific evidence supporting the link between NDMA consumption and various cancers.

Who Are the Valsartan Defendants?

Defendants in these cases are entities involved in the U.S. supply chain for generic medications Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan. For Valsartan specifically, they are categorized into six groups:

• Valsartan API Manufacturers: Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Huahai U.S., Inc.; Hetero Labs, Ltd.; Hetero Drugs, Limited; Hetero USA Inc.; Mylan Laboratories, Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.
• Finished Dose Valsartan Manufacturers: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.; Aurolife Pharma, LLC; Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Finished Dose Distributors: Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.; Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC; Torrent Pharma, Inc.; Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Wholesalers: AmerisourceBergen Corporation (now Cencora, Inc.); Cardinal Health, Inc.; McKesson Corporation.

Valsartan Lawsuits

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in Valsartan lawsuits argue that manufacturers failed to ensure the purity and safety of their products, exposing consumers to harmful carcinogens. Legal strategies focus on proving negligence in quality control and a lack of transparency regarding potential risks associated with the drug.

A crucial aspect of these cases involves demonstrating causation between NDMA exposure and the specific cancers developed by plaintiffs. Lawyers use epidemiological studies, expert testimonies, and scientific data to establish a direct link between long-term exposure to contaminated Valsartan and the onset of cancer. The scientific evidence for plaintiffs is considered strong.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers also aim to demonstrate that manufacturers had prior knowledge—or should have reasonably had knowledge—of the risks associated with NDMA but did not act quickly or effectively to mitigate them. The main defendant in this litigation has avoided much of the discovery on this point, leading to court-ordered sanctions.

Settlement Value of Valsartan Lawsuits

As none of the Valsartan cancer lawsuits have been settled or gone to trial yet, the exact potential value of these cases remains uncertain. However, Nguyen Injury Lawyer can offer a reasonable estimate of likely Valsartan settlement amounts by examining payouts in similar prior cases. For valuation purposes, our attorneys focus on average settlement values in other tort cases involving similar cancers and prior mass tort settlements.

Based on these comparisons, we estimate that a reasonable settlement value for valsartan cancer cases in the top tier will be around $150,000 to $200,000.

The valsartan cases in the highest settlement tier will likely involve the most severe types of cancer with the lowest survival rates (e.g., pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer). Valsartan cases involving more survivable cancers (kidney, colon, etc.) might fall into a second settlement tier with a potential value of around $90,000 to $125,000.

Contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer If You Took Valsartan and Now Have Cancer

If you have taken one of the recalled valsartan drugs and have been diagnosed with cancer, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer to discuss your potential claim.

A class action lawsuit, as discussed above, may result in financial settlements for Valsartan victims. Get in touch with Nguyen Injury Lawyer today for assistance. You can reach us for a free consultation through our website at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact or by calling us at XXX-XXX-XXXX.