Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit

February 26, 2025 – New Dental Injuries Lawsuit Filed

 In a new lawsuit, a resident of Battle Ground, Washington, alleges that the manufacturers of Suboxone film failed to warn about the drug’s risks of severe dental damage. The plaintiff, who was prescribed Suboxone film in Long View, Washington, to treat opioid use disorder, suffered permanent tooth decay and dental erosion due to the drug’s acidic formulation.

February 21, 2025 – Collecting Dental Records: New Court Order

A new order from the MDL judge establishes rules for collecting medical and dental records to ensure that records are gathered efficiently and without unnecessary delays. It applies to plaintiffs—anyone who has filed or will file a case in this MDL—and entities such as hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, dentists, insurance providers, and treatment programs that hold relevant medical records.

To streamline this process, the order mandates that medical providers must accept a plaintiff’s signed authorization—whether electronic or ink—and cannot demand additional documentation, such as special authorization forms or copies of identification. Once a request is received, providers must release the records within 30 days. Any delay or refusal to comply will be treated as a violation of Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs subpoenas. This means that medical providers are legally required to comply, and failure to do so may result in contempt of court or other penalties.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are responsible for monitoring compliance. If a provider refuses to release records, they can report the violation to the court, which will take action against the non-compliant entity. By enforcing strict deadlines and eliminating unnecessary obstacles, this order ensures that critical medical evidence is obtained efficiently, preventing delays that could slow the litigation.

The truth about dentists: they are not used to medical records requests and are very poor at producing them in a timely manner.

February 13, 2025 – Status Conference Highlights Discovery Challenges

 Yesterday, the court held a status conference to address key procedural and administrative matters in the Suboxone litigation. One of the primary issues discussed was the withdrawal of counsel for plaintiffs listed on Schedule A, which, you may recall, is the list of plaintiffs who were not required to file lawsuits to protect the statute of limitations. The MDL judge outlined a process for these withdrawals. The judge also directed the attorneys to work collaboratively on two crucial discovery-related matters: drafting proposed orders to ensure compliance with records requests and resolving any disputes related to those requests, as well as determining the appropriate custodians and scope of electronically stored information (ESI) production.

ESI discovery is a big deal in this litigation. ESI is electronically stored information, which includes emails, documents, databases, and other digital records that may serve as critical evidence in the case. Properly identifying custodians—individuals or entities responsible for maintaining relevant ESI—is essential to ensuring that all pertinent data is preserved and produced in discovery.

The Court also ordered Defendants to produce the new drug application (NDA) for Sublocade, a long-acting injectable version of buprenorphine used to treat opioid use disorder. The NDA contains detailed information about the drug’s formulation, approval process, and regulatory interactions with the FDA. This could be relevant to the litigation if the plaintiffs’ claims involve allegations related to Suboxone’s design, marketing, or the broader conduct of Indivior and other defendants in developing opioid addiction treatments.

To facilitate discussions on ESI search terms, the judge scheduled an informal working session with counsel on March 10, 2025. Additionally, the court guided the parameters for selecting bellwether cases.

The next status conference is set for March 11, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., with an agenda due by March 7, 2025. If the parties cannot resolve outstanding discovery disputes, they must submit their respective positions by March 5, 2025.

February 12, 2025 – Indivior’s Regulatory and Legal Challenges

 Indivior announced that the FDA has delayed its decision on proposed label changes for Sublocade, the company’s lead opioid addiction treatment. The decision, originally expected last week under a priority review, has been pushed back.

Sublocade and Suboxone are both buprenorphine-based treatments for opioid use disorder, but they differ in formulation, administration, and purpose. Sublocade is a once-monthly injectable administered by a healthcare provider, designed for patients already stabilized on a buprenorphine regimen. Suboxone is, of course, a daily sublingual film or tablet that contains both buprenorphine and naloxone.

Indivior had sought regulatory approval to expand Sublocade’s injection sites beyond the abdomen to include the thigh, buttock, and upper arm, making the treatment more flexible for patients and healthcare providers. Additionally, the proposed label change would allow for a second dose to be administered as early as one week after the initial injection, potentially improving treatment adherence. These changes are seen as critical to helping Sublocade compete with Brixadi, a rival extended-release buprenorphine treatment.

The delay comes as Indivior’s stock has already fallen 21% over the past six months, reflecting ongoing investor concerns. But while this labeling setback is a headwind for the company, Indivior’s biggest challenge remains the mounting litigation over Suboxone. The company is facing more Suboxone lawsuits than expected, and investors are looking more realistically at the billions of dollars in Indivior’s exposure in this litigation. Indivior might be miscalculating the settlement amounts this litigation will command, but the market might be catching on.

February 10, 2025 – New Suboxone Update Video Released

We just released a new Suboxone video that provides an update on where we are in the litigation in February 2025.

February 8, 2025 – Indivior’s Missteps in Litigation Strategy

Indivior’s legal team may believe they hold an advantage in these lawsuits because many plaintiffs have histories of opioid addiction. They may think juries will see these individuals as less deserving of sympathy, assuming that their past struggles will overshadow their present suffering. This would be a profound miscalculation if this is what they think. It will cost them billions.

Juries do not just weigh facts—they weigh human experiences. Plaintiffs in this litigation are not just numbers on a legal docket; they are real people with devastating injuries. The focus of these cases is not on their past addiction but on the severe, life-altering dental damage caused by Suboxone—damage that Indivior failed to warn about despite knowing the risks.

We have talked to victims. We have heard their stories. Our team has heard from parents who can’t smile at their children without embarrassment, professionals whose careers have been derailed by disfiguring tooth loss, and individuals facing the physical and financial burden of extensive dental reconstructions. When told in court, these stories will cut through any stigma Indivior’s lawyers may hope to exploit.

Indivior’s track record also works against them. This company will not come off as the good guy. A company with a history of criminal penalties (okay, maybe that does not come into evidence) making profit-driven decisions at the expense of patients is not in a strong position to argue for leniency. Juries will see through the defense’s attempts to minimize the harm done and will likely hold Indivior accountable.

If Indivior does not recognize the true strength of these cases, they may face large jury verdicts instead of settlement agreements. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are prepared to bring these cases to trial if the settlement offers do not reflect these victims’ immense suffering.

February 6, 2025 – Surge in Suboxone Tooth Decay Cases

The Suboxone tooth decay MDL saw a notable surge in January, with 142 new cases added—an increase from the previous month. This brings the total number of pending lawsuits in the MDL to 896. Do not read much into this. With so many cases covered by the tolling agreement, the number of filed cases does not fully reflect the actual activity level in this litigation. But the flow of new plaintiffs is still flowing if the calls to our law firm are any indication.

February 5, 2025 – No Agreement on Bellwether Trials

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have revised their position on the bellwether protocol to move the Suboxone MDL forward efficiently. In a good-faith attempt to compromise, they have agreed to Defendants’ preferred approach for plaintiff-centered discovery, including expanding the initial plaintiff pool, allowing for up to 250 depositions, and permitting each side to strike a trial pick. However, while plaintiffs have made significant concessions, Defendants continue to stall on their own discovery obligations.

Despite agreeing to provide search terms and custodial data by January 23, Defendants have yet to fully comply, creating unnecessary delays that prevent plaintiffs from preparing for corporate depositions. Meanwhile, plaintiffs have already met extensive discovery requirements, including submitting medical records, proof of product use, and completing Census Forms by a strict deadline. In contrast, Defendants’ vague “rolling production” of documents lacks transparency and threatens to drag out the litigation indefinitely.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also argue that a bellwether pool of 100 plaintiffs is more than sufficient, consistent with past MDLs, and if Defendants insist on an inflated number, they should be required to justify it through expert testimony. With discovery imbalances threatening to prolong the MDL, plaintiffs’ attorneys will press these concerns at the upcoming case management conferences to ensure a fair and efficient process leading up to trial.

February 1, 2025 – Status Conference Highlights Key Issues

Judge Calabrese held a status conference to go over important updates in an ongoing lawsuit involving Suboxone, a drug used to treat opioid addiction. The purpose of these status conferences is for the judge and lawyers to check in to ensure the case progresses and to work through any disputes before going to trial.

One major issue discussed was a dispute over confidentiality in depositions. The court settled the disagreement and gave lawyers instructions on how to handle similar issues in the future. The judge also made sure that the most recent list of claimants is accurate and up to date.

The court gave attorneys two major assignments to complete. First, they must agree on a standardized way to collect medical records, since these records are key evidence in the lawsuit. Second, they must work on a bellwether trial process—the path to early trials to help predict how the other lawsuits might turn out. Just getting trial dates would be a massive step towards a global Suboxone tooth decay settlement to bring some justice for victims.

The next status conference is scheduled for February 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.

January 23, 2025 – An Unconventional Angle in the Suboxone Warnings Case

A developing argument in the Suboxone litigation presents a different kind of failure-to-warn claim—one that does not rely entirely on whether patients would have avoided the drug altogether if properly warned. Instead, it highlights a missed opportunity for harm reduction. Had Suboxone’s manufacturer provided clear warnings, patients could have taken simple, proactive steps—such as rinsing their mouths after use, increasing fluoride intake, or scheduling more frequent dental checkups—to prevent or minimize the severe dental damage now at the center of these lawsuits.

In most failure-to-warn cases, manufacturers argue that patients would not have changed their decisions even if warned. That defense is usually a significant obstacle for a claim. If the patient would have taken the drug anyway, how can they argue that the lack of a warning caused harm? However, in this instance, many Suboxone users might have continued taking the medication, but they would have done so differently had they been given the proper information. This is a different type of warnings case than the ones our lawyers usually see. By failing to disclose the risks in time, Indivior deprived patients of the ability to protect themselves.

January 13, 2025 – Pill Versus Film: Key to Suboxone Claims

We get calls from people who took Suboxone pills and want to bring a claim. They get frustrated when we cannot help them. I get that. But sublingual film is really the key to these claims.

Dissolving the medication in the mouth before it is absorbed creates a prolonged exposure to the drug within the oral cavity. While it is in the mouth, the pH balance is affected. Buprenorphine and the naloxone in the formulation lead to a decrease in the mouth’s natural pH, especially when left to dissolve over an extended period under the tongue. So Suboxone lawyers argue both that the manufacturers failed to warn about these issues and the drug’s design was more harmful than prior forms of the drug.

January 3, 2025 – MDL Judge Partially Denies Motion to Dismiss

In a significant ruling for victims of Suboxone-related injuries, the MDL judge delivered a mixed but ultimately encouraging decision for plaintiffs. This ruling applied to just one case but the logic of the ruling will be applied to other claims.

Like all these cases, this plaintiff suffered severe dental injuries allegedly caused by Suboxone’s acidic formulation for defective design and failure to warn. The court upheld Bennett’s pre-approval design defect claim, recognizing that plaintiffs can argue manufacturers had a duty to pursue safer alternatives before FDA approval—such as Sublocade, an injectable buprenorphine option approved later. The court also allowed the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim, ruling that the Suboxone label’s failure to warn about dental injuries until 2022 left patients and their doctors unaware of serious risks.

We were unhappy to see the judge dismiss claims about post-approval design changes and narrow the failure-to-warn claim to Indivior as the label-holder. Ultimately, the ruling reinforced the principle that brand-name drug manufacturers remain responsible for ensuring their product labels reflect evolving safety concerns.

December 2, 2024 – Suboxone Settlement Update

Suboxone-related dental injury victims are eager to know when settlement payouts might begin. So when do we expect a Suboxone settlement?

There is speculation that a settlement might come sooner than expected, potentially before critical legal milestones like a Daubert ruling. However, a more realistic timeline points to mid-2025, tied to the debated three-year statute of limitations. Defense attorneys for Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, argue that this window expires around June 2025—a timeline likely to influence the company’s settlement strategy.

Indivior is unlikely to announce settlements before mid-2025 out of concern that doing so could spark a wave of new claims. By waiting closer to the statute of limitations cutoff, the company seeks to limit the influx of new plaintiffs and better control its overall liability. So the talk of an early Suboxone settlement is, in our minds, just talk.

November 30, 2024: Motion to Dismiss Hearing

Judge Calabrese has scheduled oral arguments for the defendant’s motion to dismiss on December 16. In preparation, the court has directed the parties to submit a joint report by December 12, outlining any additional issues they believe should be addressed during the proceedings.

November 23, 2024: Multiple Lawyers

Many Suboxone victims have hired more than one lawyer for their claim. One key takeaway from Thursday’s status conference was the need for attorneys to familiarize themselves with the Rubris Crosslink platform, mentioned in our November 15 update below, to begin addressing this issue. Duplicate representation can create conflicts and inefficiencies that slow down case progress and, if left unresolved, complicate settlement negotiations.

The Rubris Crosslink will help solve the problem of Suboxone victims hiring multiple lawyers by providing a centralized system to identify and manage overlapping legal representation. This is not a Suboxone-specific problem—we see victims with agreements with multiple law firms in every mass tort. Why? Mostly, it results from misunderstandings, aggressive marketing, and people just wrongly thinking two bites of the apple are better than one.

The platform uses its database to track cases across participating firms, flagging instances where a client has retained more than one lawyer. This enables firms to resolve conflicts early, ensuring smoother case management and better outcomes for victims.

December 2, 2024 – Suboxone Settlement Update

Suboxone-related dental injury victims are eager to know when settlement payouts might begin. So when do we expect a Suboxone settlement?

There is speculation that a settlement might come sooner than expected, potentially before critical legal milestones like a Daubert ruling. However, a more realistic timeline points to mid-2025, tied to the debated three-year statute of limitations. Defense attorneys for Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, argue that this window expires around June 2025—a timeline likely to influence the company’s settlement strategy.

Indivior is unlikely to announce settlements before mid-2025 out of concern that doing so could spark a wave of new claims. By waiting closer to the statute of limitations cutoff, the company seeks to limit the influx of new plaintiffs and better control its overall liability. So the talk of an early Suboxone settlement is, in our minds, just talk.

November 30, 2024: Motion to Dismiss Hearing

Judge Calabrese has scheduled oral arguments for the defendant’s motion to dismiss on December 16. In preparation, the court has directed the parties to submit a joint report by December 12, outlining any additional issues they believe should be addressed during the proceedings.

November 23, 2024: Multiple Lawyers

Many Suboxone victims have hired more than one lawyer for their claim. One key takeaway from Thursday’s status conference was the need for attorneys to familiarize themselves with the Rubris Crosslink platform, mentioned in our November 15 update below, to begin addressing this issue. Duplicate representation can create conflicts and inefficiencies that slow case progress and complicate settlement negotiations if left unresolved.

The Rubris Crosslink will help solve the problem of Suboxone victims hiring multiple lawyers by providing a centralized system to identify and manage overlapping legal representation. This is not a Suboxone-specific problem—we see victims with agreements with multiple law firms in every mass tort. Why? Mostly, it results from misunderstandings, aggressive marketing, and people just wrongly thinking two bites of the apple are better than one.

The platform uses its database to track cases across participating firms, flagging instances where a client has retained more than one lawyer. This enables firms to resolve conflicts early, ensuring smoother case management and better outcomes for victims.

October 31, 2024: Design Defect

There is no question the key issue in this litigation is failure to warn. But there is also a strong design defect case that will be thoroughly explored.

Design defect claims in Suboxone litigation focus on the assertion that the medication’s formulation is inherently flawed, leading to severe dental injuries among users. Plaintiffs argue that the acidic properties of Suboxone, combined with its prolonged exposure to teeth during under the tongue administration, create a high risk for tooth decay, erosion, and even tooth loss.

Unlike many other medications, Suboxone is designed to dissolve slowly in the mouth. This prolongs direct exposure to its acidic components. The result is the drug weakens enamel and fosters an environment for decay. This somewhat unique feature of Suboxone’s design is central to these claims. Suboxone lawyers contend it results in more harm than necessary, especially given the already vulnerable health profile of many patients in addiction recovery.

In addition to its acidic properties, Suboxone’s formulation also lacks elements that could mitigate these harmful effects, such as pH buffers or additives to reduce acidity. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that reasonable, alternative designs could have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of dental injuries. By failing to include protective ingredients, Indivior prioritized the drug’s efficacy over patient safety.

October 18, 2024 – Suboxone Overdose

The deeper we get into the Suboxone litigation and the more we talk to victims, the more we learn about the drug. Our initial take was wondering whether there should be a Suboxone recall after we saw the carnage this drug took on the mouths of so many.

But there are a lot of benefits to Suboxone that we did not focus on when the litigation began. For example, it is helpful that it is hard to overdose on Suboxone and using it for long periods can be manageable if you can control the side effects.

The point is we would not support a Suboxone recall. Instead, we think there should be a strong warning—there still is not a strong warning in 2024—that would allow people to both make an informed choice and to take steps to monitor and mitigate the risks of severe tooth decay.

October 4, 2024 – Status Conference

This weekend, there is a rare two-day status conference in the Suboxone MDL. The biggest thing on the agenda that matters to you, if you have or are considering bringing a Suboxone lawsuit, is putting together a plan for bellwether trials.

Bellwether trials are the first trials in mass tort litigation. They are used to test the waters, previewing how juries may respond to the evidence and arguments presented by both plaintiffs and defendants. These trials will focus on key issues shared by most cases in the MDL, such as claims related to design defects, inadequate warnings, or misleading marketing practices associated with Suboxone. Because bellwether trial results often indicate how future cases might be decided, they play a crucial role in shaping the litigation strategy for both sides.

Bellwether trials are essential in the journey toward a global settlement in an MDL like Suboxone. The outcomes of these trials can significantly impact the direction of settlement negotiations because they give both parties a sense of the potential liability and exposure for the defendant. But our lawyers think there is a real possibility that the defendants will want to settle these lawsuits before a bellwether trial because they fear what a jury will do. But you need trial dates to put pressure on defendants to settle. So, getting a trial set sooner rather than later will expedite an eventual Suboxone Settlement.

September 30, 2024 – New Case to Defeat Motion to Dismiss

The Third Circuit recently addressed implied preemption of state failure-to-warn claims in the drug labeling context in In Re Fosamax (Sept. 20, 2024). The court vacated and remanded the district court’s decision, stating that it gave too little weight to the presumption against preemption and held that the plaintiffs’ state law claims were not preempted.

In our August 24 update below, we talk about the Suboxone defendants’ motion to dismiss for preemption. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are confident we will win this motion even without this new case. This should not be a close call. But this new opinion holds the door open just a little wider. It’s like bringing a parachute to a skydive when you’re already wearing a jetpack. Unnecessary, maybe, but who will complain about an extra layer of safety? Every small advantage counts when the stakes are this high. The entire litigation rides on winning this motion. Fosamax is the precedent that nudges the argument even further in the right direction.

September 23, 2024: Why Do Suboxone Lawyers Prefer Cases with Use Before June 2018?

The Suboxone lawsuits primarily target the use of the brand name Suboxone before June 2018. Before this time, Indivior, the company responsible for the design, testing, and production of Suboxone, controlled most of the market.

After June 2018, generic versions of Suboxone became more widely available and took over most of the market share. The current wave of Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits is focused on the brand-name version of the drug, alleging that its defective design contributed to severe dental problems such as tooth decay, erosion, and tooth loss.

Why not sue the generic manufacturers? You can. But it is more complicated. This difficulty arises from the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court, which effectively protects generic drug manufacturers from liability for failure-to-warn claims – the signature claim in this litigation. Generic manufacturers are legally required to copy the brand-name drug’s labeling exactly, including warnings, as per FDA regulations. They cannot independently change or add warnings to the drug’s label, even if they become aware of potential risks.

Because generic manufacturers must follow the label of the original brand-name drug, the courts have consistently ruled that they cannot be held liable for failing to provide additional warnings beyond what the brand-name manufacturer has included. This means that for lawsuits like those related to Suboxone, plaintiffs are limited primarily to targeting Indivior, the original manufacturer, even if they were harmed by the generic version of the drug.

September 13, 2024: Injuries in This Litigation

Today is less of an update and more of a comment.

I think the evidence at trial will show that Indivior knew Suboxone caused tooth decay and failed to put a warning on the product because it wanted to maximize profits and thought that a warning would disincentivize doctors from prescribing the medication.

But I think the severity of the injuries in this litigation, in terms of the scope of the dental decay that victims have endured, has surprised and will continue to surprise Indivior, Aquestive, and probably many plaintiffs’ lawyers. The injuries we are seeing from victims and the impact it has had on their lives is very real. Your mouth was not built to withstand the steady, relentless onslaught of chemical compounds designed to break down one addiction, while surreptitiously handing you another problem – in this case, catastrophic dental decay.

September 10, 2024 – New Suboxone Lawsuit Filed

A Utah man has filed a new lawsuit in federal court, alleging that Indivior and Aquestive Therapeutics, among others, are responsible for severe dental injuries caused by the prescription drug Suboxone film.

The plaintiff, who was prescribed the medication to treat opioid addiction, claims that the drug’s acidic formulation resulted in permanent dental damage, including tooth decay and erosion, despite the drug being marketed as safe.

The plaintiff argues that the defendants failed to adequately warn of the dental risks associated with Suboxone film, which combines buprenorphine and naloxone, and is designed to be absorbed through the mouth. The complaint highlights a January 2022 FDA warning about the potential for serious dental issues with buprenorphine-based medications, but claims that such warnings were not included in Suboxone’s medication guide until June 2022 (not to mention that those warnings are still inadequate).

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, alleging negligence, defective design, and failure to provide adequate warnings. The plaintiff also asserts that the defendants knowingly concealed the risks associated with the drug to maximize profits at the expense of patient safety.

July 2, 2024 – Suboxone Settlement Rumors

There is some scattered talk of early settlement talks on the Suboxone MDL. Will this happen? I’m betting no. I don’t see Indivior getting serious about settlement until June 2025 at the earliest.

But who knows? I’m passing the rumor along to you for what it is worth.

June 11, 2024 – Two Lists for Tolling Agreement

There are two lists for the tolling agreement. The main list is for plaintiffs from states other than New Jersey, Virginia, and Delaware. These plaintiffs have diversity jurisdiction, meaning they can file their cases in federal court and potentially be included in a multidistrict litigation based on diversity jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction is a form of jurisdiction that allows cases to be heard in federal court where the parties are citizens of different states or countries and the amount in controversy.

This jurisdiction is intended to provide a neutral forum for parties from different states to resolve their disputes and to prevent potential bias in state courts.

So there is a separate list for plaintiffs residing in New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia – where the defendant corporations reside. Since these plaintiffs share state citizenship with a defendant, they lack diversity jurisdiction and would typically need to file their cases in state court.

However, the tolling agreement allows these non-diverse plaintiffs to toll their claims, meaning they can delay filing their lawsuits without losing the right to do so later.

May 17, 2024 – Plaintiff Attorneys’ Request for Tolling Period Goes On

We have been talking in the last few updates about a tolling agreement that would allow plaintiffs to avoid filing a lawsuit but still allow them to keep their case safe on the statute of limitations.

No one is sure of what the statute of limitations is for certain, and there are also nuances of specific cases that could vary this deadline to file a Suboxone lawsuit. But lawyers on both sides acknowledge that a potential bar date of June 17, 2024, exists for many plaintiffs in states with a two-year statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs wanted a tolling period for clients retained by the bar date, allowing time to investigate claims, such as obtaining medical or pharmacy records to substantiate Suboxone use.

Victims’ Suboxone lawyers have argued that without this period, a rush of complaints would result in filing Suboxone suits that seem viable but will not be after the medical records are collected.

The defendants insist on not waiving their time-bar defenses. They want to make plaintiffs’ lawyers spend the time and money to file thousands of lawsuits, hoping some will drop out.

In a new ruling today, the judge decided to borrow a procedural innovation we saw in the Xarelto litigation to find a Goldilocks middle ground. By June 14, 2024, the plaintiffs’ lawyers will file a complaint on the master MDL docket, listing individual plaintiffs on a schedule. Defendants may file a motion to sever by July 1, 2024, with severed claims continuing as separate actions and amendments relating back to the original filing.

What does that mean? I’m not 100% sure. We will know more at the case management conference next month. But I can tell you how I think this will work.

By June 14, the plaintiffs’ lawyers in leadership must file a comprehensive complaint on the master MDL docket, including a schedule (Schedule A) listing individual plaintiffs. This schedule will contain specific information for each plaintiff, such as names, the firm representing them, their residency and citizenship, designated venue, and details regarding their case, such as where they were prescribed and used Suboxone film.

Then, Defendants will have until July 1, 2024, to file a motion to sever, requesting that the MDL judge separate individual plaintiffs’ claims from the master complaint. If the judge grants the motion to sever, the severed claims will continue as separate individual actions, ensuring that the claims remain active and linked to the original MDL filing.

Plaintiffs whose claims are severed would need to immediately file an amendment to their lawsuits in their new individual actions. These amendments will relate back to the original filing date in the MDL, preserving the plaintiffs’ original filing dates and any associated statute of limitations considerations.

This middle-ground approach allows for an organized and streamlined process to manage numerous claims without overwhelming the court system with simultaneous filings. It probably gives plaintiffs mostly what we need, but just adding in a bunch of additional hoops.

March 28, 2024 – Suboxone Dental Lawsuit Criteria

We talked on Wednesday about raising the bar in terms of the severity of injury. Our law firm is now doing that by modifying our Suboxone dental lawsuit eligibility. Our lawyers require three or more extractions or similar injuries for all new cases (or something equally awful).

March 27, 2024 – MDL Judge Issues Case Management Order – Improving the Suboxone Claim Process

The MDL judge issued a Case Management Order (CMO No. 3) today for the Suboxone (Buprenorphine/Naloxone) Film Products Liability Litigation MDL. This order, agreed upon by all parties involved, outlines the process for directly filing and serving lawsuits related to Suboxone film within this multidistrict litigation (MDL 3092).

The scope of this order includes cases transferred to the court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, any related actions transferred or filed later, and cases initially filed in or moved to this court. It specifies that using the direct filing and service procedures does not waive any legal defenses that defendants may have.

Key points from the order include:

• Plaintiffs can file their Suboxone-related lawsuits directly in the Northern District of Ohio to be included in the MDL, aiming to streamline the process and improve efficiency.
• There’s no obligation for a lawsuit to be filed directly into the MDL, although there is no reason not to file directly.
• Attorneys from anywhere in the U.S. can represent clients in this litigation without needing to file a motion or pay a fee for appearing pro hac vice in federal court in Ohio.
• All complaints filed must include specific information and comply with designated formatting, including stating the chosen venue for the lawsuit—where the suit would have been filed if there had not been an MDL.
• The order facilitates easier service of process on defendants, with most agreeing to waive formal service requirements, streamlining the initiation of these cases.

March 26, 2024 – How Severe Do My Dental Injuries Need To Be?

The one question no one has really addressed is how severe the dental injuries need to be to support a claim.

First, let’s be clear. Anyone with an injury has the right to bring a claim. So what I’m really talking about is how serious the injury needs to be for you to get a lawyer who will take your case… and not eventually drop you because your injuries are not severe enough.

This question is the natural evolution of mass tort litigation, where the injuries vary in severity. At first, lawyers get excited. They want cases – as many as they can grab. The practical reality sets in. It takes work to get these files ready to go and the juice is not worth the squeeze on smaller injury lawsuits.

So Suboxone lawyers are now tightening their criteria. Where the criteria ultimately settles will still vary from lawyer to lawyer. But for our group, there needs to be at least one tooth extraction or comparable injury. Just tooth decay or a root canal is not enough. That bar could get raised to two or three extractions or comparable injuries before all is said and done.

Yes, we want people to call and hire our lawyers. But we also want to make sure we are giving you real information here without the fluff.

If you have opinions or questions – or hear what others have to say – you can always go to the comments below this page.

February 5, 2024 – MDL Panel Ruling Creates MDL-3092

Let’s dig a little deeper into the MDL Panel ruling creating MDL-3092, a new Suboxone class action lawsuit.

I keep saying class action lawsuit because that is what people call it. But we’re actually dealing with a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), which consolidates individual lawsuits from across the country into one court, allowing for streamlined pretrial processes without merging the cases into a single claim.

Unlike a class action, where plaintiffs are treated as a single entity, an MDL respects each plaintiff’s case as distinct, potentially leading to different outcomes for each party based on their specific circumstances.

This distinction is crucial because, in an MDL, each claimant can receive a personalized resolution, whereas, in a class action, all class members are bound by a single verdict or settlement.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a transfer order on Friday to consolidate multiple lawsuits involving the marketing, sales practices, and product liability of Suboxone (Buprenorphine/Naloxone) film.

This decision comes after plaintiffs in eight separate actions petitioned for centralization in the Northern District of Ohio, arguing that the fifteen cases, currently spread across five different districts, share common factual questions.

The panel has also been informed of eleven related actions across nine districts, further complicating the legal landscape.

Every Suboxone lawsuit in this litigation centers on allegations that Suboxone film, a treatment for opiate addiction, causes dental erosion and decay due to its acidic composition—a stark departure from its previous tablet form.

One defendant, Reckitt, argued that centralization might lead to future unwarranted lawsuits.

However, the Panel found these objections without merit, emphasizing that centralization will facilitate more streamlined and efficient pretrial proceedings, including discovery, and help avoid inconsistent rulings.

The choice of the Northern District of Ohio as the venue was easy. Everyone agreed to it.

This consolidation represents a crucial step forward in the path to a global Suboxone settlement to compensate victims for their injuries.

Will there be a Suboxone settlement in 2024 now? It is unlikely. Our more realistic prediction is a settlement in 2025. Our Suboxone attorneys do not think we will see a single settlement payout in 2024, but many dynamics at play should lead to compensation in 2025.

The big thing for victims is that the clock is ticking. Most likely, there are people with severe decay who would have had a claim that they have already lost the right to sue because the deadline to file a Suboxone lawsuit has passed.

But the issue is complicated, and the only way to figure it out is to call a lawyer today.

Call us, but if not, call anyone handling these claims.

February 4, 2024 – JPML Creates Suboxone MDL

On Friday, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created an MDL Suboxone class action lawsuit, consolidating all federal lawsuits alleging that the manufacturers of Suboxone film did not adequately inform consumers that the medication for opioid use disorder includes components that could lead to dental decay.

The Panels moved the 15 Suboxone lawsuits, originally spread across five judicial districts, to the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio. Judge J. Philip Calabrese has been assigned to manage these proceedings.

The MDL is In re: Suboxone (Buprenorphine/Naloxone) Film Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:24-md-03092.

January 30, 2024 – Statute of Limitations Issues in Suboxone Litigation

The statute of limitations is potentially problematic for some in the Suboxone litigation.

So if you cannot get a lawyer on the phone, it could be because you are in a state where the two-year statute of limitations gives lawyers cause for concern.

I used a lawyered-up word like cause for concern because the deadline to file is often not simple in mass tort lawsuits. For just one example, if your injuries showed up more recently, that may be a way around the statute of limitations. There is an argument that some are making that the deadline to file a Suboxone lawsuit has not even begun because the warning on the product is inadequate.

Still, most Suboxone lawyers – including us are now only taking cases in these jurisdictions because of “concerns” about the statute of limitations.

These are the states in which we are taking new cases:

Texas, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Connecticut, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington D.C., Vermont, Wyoming.

If you live in one of these states, the time to file a Suboxone lawsuit could be running out. Contact us today. (This has since been updated and we are taking cases in all 50 states now.)

January 26, 2024 – Suboxone Hearing

Yesterday was the Suboxone hearing to determine whether to make this litigation an MDL class action lawsuit. The court should rule early next month.

The prediction here is that the MDL Panel will consolidate all Suboxone lawsuits in federal court in Ohio.

January 22, 2024 – New Suboxone Case Highlights Statute of Limitations Issue

A new Suboxone case was filed this week that will highlight the challenges of bringing Suboxone lawsuits that may be filed after the statute of limitations has passed.

The plaintiff in this case is a resident and citizen of Kentucky, residing in Mt. Sterling within Montgomery County. The plaintiff experienced tooth damage directly linked to the use of prescription Suboxone film by the defendants.

In 2011, a physician prescribed Suboxone film to treat the plaintiff’s opioid use disorder. However, the plaintiff says he only discovered in the last few months of 2023 that the film had caused tooth decay.

That last allegation will be essential. Arguably, Kentucky’s draconian one-year statute of limitations has passed. But there is a way around it: the discovery rule. The plaintiff is saying he did not learn of his injuries until 2023 and filed his Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit within a year of the manifestation of his injury.

December 22, 2023 – Statute of Limitations

In a car accident case, figuring out the statute of limitations is easy. It is more difficult to determine the statute of limitations for a Suboxone lawsuit. Making it more complicated, two statutes with the exact same statute of limitations might apply the deadline to file differently.

So what do you do? If your question is whether you can still apply for a Suboxone lawsuit, call a lawyer. Call us, call someone. But do it now.

The two-year statute of limitations is arguably approaching in many jurisdictions, including:

Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia.

December 13, 2023 – Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion

The defendants in the Suboxone lawsuits – including Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions Inc., and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. – responded to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ motion for a class action lawsuit for Suboxone.

Perhaps surprisingly, the defendants agree that all these cases have much in common so that a class action makes sense. They also believe it is a good idea to bring all the similar lawsuits together under one judge, J. Philip Calabrese, in the Northern District of Ohio.

This would make things more efficient and consistent across cases.

November 27, 2023 – How Can Suboxone Cases Become a Lawsuit

Let’s take a deeper look at the critical points in the motion for transfer and coordination or consolidation – in layperson’s terms, create a Suboxone MDL class action lawsuit – in the Northern District of Ohio to house all current and future lawsuits related to Suboxone.

Background on Suboxone: Suboxone film is a prescription drug used to treat opioid use disorder. It works by reducing withdrawal symptoms and opioid cravings without causing the highs and lows of opioid misuse. The drug contains buprenorphine, a synthetic opioid, which partially activates opiate receptors in the brain.

Administration Forms and Dental Issues: Buprenorphine can be administered in various forms, including implants, injections, patches, tablets, and films. The acidic makeup of Suboxone film, in particular, has been linked to severe and permanent dental erosion and decay.

Defendants’ Role: The defendants are responsible for developing, designing, testing, labeling, packaging, manufacturing, distributing, selling, and promoting Suboxone. The FDA initially approved the Suboxone tablet as an “Orphan Drug” in 2002. Its exclusivity expired in 2009.

Transition to Film and Alleged Schemes: To avoid competition with generic versions of the tablet, the defendants developed Suboxone film, which the FDA approved in 2010. After this, the defendants allegedly schemed to increase film prescriptions and decrease tablet prescriptions, leading to antitrust violations and criminal convictions of senior executives.

Awareness of Dental Issues: This is the key to every Suboxone lawsuit. As early as 2007, adverse event reports (AERs) and literature indicated a possible link between sublingual administration of Suboxone tablets and films and severe dental decay. Between 2007 and 2021, at least 136 adverse events related to oral health were reportedly associated with Suboxone use, indicating defendants’ awareness of the dental health issues.

The plaintiffs’ Suboxone lawyers argue that despite knowing about the potential for dental injuries from the acidic formulation of Suboxone tablets and films, the defendants did not take adequate action to prevent these issues.

The motion suggests consolidating these cases would be efficient and just, as they involve similar facts and claims.

November 17, 2023 – Plaintiff Attorneys Ask for Consolidation

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to centralize all federal Suboxone lawsuits into multidistrict litigation (MDL) for streamlined pretrial proceedings.

The consolidation of these lawsuits would be a game-changer for sure.

Right now, we have lawsuits spanning across multiple districts nationwide. A Suboxone class action lawsuit would efficiently manage these claims alleging the same core components.

October 25, 2023 – Indivior Agrees to Settle for $385 Million

Indivior, the company that makes the drug Suboxone, has now agreed to settle a lawsuit by drug wholesalers alleging that Indivior unlawfully suppressed generic competition.

Indivior will pay $385 million to resolve most of the claims, which claim that the company’s dissolving film version of Suboxone was developed for the sole purpose of suppressing competition from generic Suboxone after the expiration of the original patent.

Indivior