Sanofi Gets Favorable Judgment in Taxotere Hair Loss Case

Sanofi Gets Favorable Judgment in Taxotere Hair Loss Case

Introduction

On Monday, April 19, 2021, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld an award of summary judgment to Sanofi-Aventis in a Taxotere lawsuit stating that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the drug maker's alleged failure to warn of permanent hair loss caused her injury.

The panel released a 10 page opinion was published by a three-judge panel which stated that Sanofi will not have to face a plaintiff who was unable to provide enough evidence that links the cause of hair fall by use of Taxotere.

The 5th Circuit supported the lower court’s decision to affirm the win for Sanofi in the hair loss case. Sanofi markets and manufactures the anti-cancer drug, Taxotere which is used for treating cancers. This drug was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1996. Sanofi managed the win in a patient suit that alleged that it failed to warn that Taxotere causes permanent hair loss.

The panel stated in their opinion that the dispute by the plaintiff is beyond genuine as a warning of permanent hair fall as opposed to temporary would not have any effect on prescribing physician to prescribe Taxotere. Under Louisiana law, the plaintiff could not establish causation.

The plaintiff’s hair loss case against Sanofi is part of Louisiana multidistrict litigation (MDL- 2740) which has common claims of permanent hair loss by use of Taxotere. The claim of the patient who faced a permanent hair fall was dismissed in May 2020 after receiving testimony from her oncologist, who stated that the woman was prescribed Taxotere as it was the best drug to treat her cancer considering her age and cardiac condition. Also, the plaintiff’s doctor was aware of the risk of permanent hair loss.

Sanofi stated that the plaintiff also signed informed consent before using Taxotere where it was mentioned that the radiation caused by this anti-cancer drug could lead to permanent hair loss. The plaintiff has a dispute over the fact, that her doctor admitted he would have gone for a different chemotherapy course if she didn't want to risk permanent hair loss.

The panel highlighted that as per Louisiana Products Liability Act, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the failure to warn was the cause of her damage. Also, the plaintiff should be able to prove that the manufacturer fails to warn the prescribing doctor.