Valsartan Cancer Lawsuit Settlement

Our lawyers can help you bring a Valsartan cancer lawsuit in all 50 states.

Valsartan is a popular blood-pressure drug used by millions of people in the U.S. and sold under the brand names Diofan and Exforge. But Valsartan was recalled after it was discovered that the drug was contaminated with dangerously high levels of a carcinogenic chemical called NDMA.

This has prompted over 1,000 victims to file a Valsartan lawsuit after developing certain types of cancer after prolonged use of Valsartan.

Our law firm handles valsartan cancer lawsuits in all 50 states. We are still taking new claims.  If you used Valsartan for an extended period, it may have significantly increased your chance of developing certain types of cancer. Get a free online consultation or call our lawyers at 800-553-8082.  

Valsartan News and Updates 2025

Below are updates from the Valsartan MDL:

May 2, 2025 – 12 New Cases Join MDL

Another 12 lawsuits joined the Valsartan litigation this month, bringing the total to 1,322. That is a noticeable uptick for a litigation that has been moving for years. But this is not unusual when the injuries involve latent diseases like cancer. The contaminated drugs may have been pulled from the market years ago, but the nature of these illnesses means victims often do not get diagnosed until long after exposure. Many of these plaintiffs are only now connecting their cancer to years of unknowingly taking tainted Valsartan. So even if the manufacturing problems were fixed, the wave of litigation continues because the damage was already 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 has issued Case Management Order No. 38 in MDL No. 2875 to address deficiencies in product identification for personal injury claims that has long been a festering issue in this litigation.

Under this order, if a plaintiff has named a manufacturer as a defendant but lacks documentary evidence proving that 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 either 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.

What does this mean for plaintiffs?  This order means we must have proof that the specific manufacturer they are suing made the product they used. If a manufacturer disputes their involvement, it 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 with prejudice (meaning permanently). Plaintiffs need to ensure they 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. That is 1 more than 8 new cases we got 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 crucial milestone, 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 (we will update you on this tomorrow), this first trial will serve as a test case, helping both sides assess how juries might respond to the evidence.

While some manufacturers have already settled claims, others have resisted, prompting the court to push forward with bellwether trials. If this case doesn’t drive broader settlements, a second wave of trials is already being prepared, and Judge Bumb could eventually send cases back to federal courts nationwide for individual trials. The legal battle is far from over, but as key deadlines approach—including expert discovery concluding by May 8 and final pretrial motions due in July—this upcoming trial could play a pivotal role in determining 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, keeping pace with the prior month. The total case count stands at 1,295. While new filings have slowed compared to earlier phases of the litigation, our firm 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 getting diagnosed and connecting their diagnoses to contaminated Valsartan.

January 16, 2025 –  Valsartan Settlement

This motion, filed in the MDL yesterday by plaintiffs’ lawyers for Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan claims, seeks 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. Here’s a breakdown of its key elements and implications:

1. Purpose of the Motion:
   • The motion requests the court to authorize the creation of 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.
2. Appointments Requested:
   • Fund Administrator: EAG Gulf Coast, LLC will oversee the administration of the fund, including payments and compliance.
   • Custodian: Western Alliance Bank will manage the fund’s financial assets and ensure investments align with strict safety standards.
3. Oversight:
   • The fund will remain under the court’s jurisdiction to ensure compliance with legal and administrative requirements.
   • Quarterly statements will be prepared, tracking receipts, investments, and distributions.
4. Attorney Fee Structures:
   • The motion allows for structured settlements or deferred compensation agreements for attorneys’ fees, offering tax advantages for participating counsel.
5. Investment of Funds:
   • The fund will invest settlement monies in low-risk financial instruments (e.g., U.S. Treasury securities or highly rated money market accounts) to preserve the principal while generating some returns.
6. Closure:
   • Once all distributions are complete, the Fund Administrator will wind down operations and seek discharge from further responsibilities.

January 7, 2025 – MDL Adds 5 New Cases

5 new cases were added to the Valsartan class action MDL during December. That is the exact same number of new cases that were added to the MDL during the previous month. There are now a total of 1,288 pending cases in the MDL.

January 6, 2025 – Trial Dates Set

We keep moving forward. On December 31, 2024, the court finalized the selection of five cases for the second wave of bellwether trials in this litigation. These cases were chosen after a tentative selection on December 16, 2024, and following input from both parties through written statements and a conference call. The selected cases are:

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

Lawyers for both sides must be ready to raise any objections to these cases during a status conference on January 9, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., which will take place via Teams.

December 4, 2024 – 5 New Cases in MDL

November brought a quiet month for the Valsartan MDL, with only five new cases added, representing a 0.4% increase. The total number of pending cases now stands at 1,283.  Our law firm is still taking new cases but most of the claims that are out there have already been brought.

December 1, 2024 – New Trial Date Set

The new trial date is set for September 8, 2025, which is much later than victims were hoping for.  Here is the schedule:

November 30, 2024 – Case Management Conference

A critical case management conference in the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) is set to take place virtually via Microsoft Teams on December 4, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. The conference, presided over by Special Master Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie,  will address key matters, including jurisdictional issues surrounding Track One bellwether cases and the parties’ submissions regarding their Lexecon waivers.

November 1, 2024 – MDL Adds Eight Cases

Only eight new cases were added to the Valsartan class action MDL last month. That brings the total number of pending cases up to 1,278.  This is mature litigation.  Our lawyers are still getting new cases but they are few and far between.

October 28, 2024 – The First Valsartan Lawsuit to Go to Trial (seriously this time)

October 20, 2024 – New and Probably Smarter Plan

The U.S. District Judge overseeing federal Valsartan lawsuits has postponed the first bellwether trial, originally set to begin this month. The first trial was set to be a third-party payor claim, which is a claim without an actual personal injury plaintiff who was diagnosed with cancer. That never really made a ton of sense and the judge is belatedly fixing it. The new plan is to select a new personal injury case for the first trial, involving a plaintiff diagnosed with cancer after exposure to recalled Valsartan.

October 1, 2024 – MDL Cases Totals

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

September 9, 2024 – Where Will the Fees for Sanctions against ZHP Go?

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

As a result, plaintiffs’ lawyers plan to file a motion requesting that the awarded fees and expenses be designated as common benefit reimbursement, to be managed by the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for the benefit of all plaintiffs involved.

September 8, 2024 – Trial Length

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are concerned that the current trial schedule (3.5 weeks) is inadequate due to the case’s complexity. They propose starting the trial earlier or allowing more time to accommodate witness testimonies and defense arguments.

September 3, 2024: 7 New Cases Added to MDL

Only 7 new cases were added to the Valsartan MDL last month. That brings the total number of pending cases in the MDL up to 1,264.

August 26, 2024: Modifications to Special Master Order No. 100

August 20, 2024:  Hearing

There is a hearing on Friday to resolve various disputes between the parties.

August 15, 2024: Trial Is Focus

This litigation is now focused on the first bellwether trial in November.

August 5, 2024: Zhejiang Tries to Fight Sanctions Ruling

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical is having a freak out of the sanctions order, manifested in a 31 page motion.

The gist of their argument is that the jury should determine the appropriateness of the discovery violations, which contradicts the court’s prior conclusive rulings on these issues.

It also argues that the impact of these sanctions will complicate the legal proceedings and might necessitate a mini-trial on matters already settled by the court, thus potentially prolonging the litigation and detracting from the main issues at trial.  The logic of why that would be is a little confusing.

The could will hold a hearing on September 3 to hear ZHP out.  But I would bet against it.  The court did not sanction this defendant lightly.  You do not issue that type of order unless you have thought how to best address ZHP’s non-compliance.

August 3, 2023: Correcting the Record

Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals,  Actavis and Torrent are requesting a minor revision to the adverse inference jury instruction related to Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical that we 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 existing 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 prevent confusion and potential prejudice against them, as they were not involved in the discovery disputes that led to this sanction against ZHP.

This motion should be and will be granted.

August 2, 2024: Valsartan MDL Case Count

The Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products MDL-2875 experienced 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 mature litigation that is unlikely to have any big jumps in case counts.

July 24, 2024:  Big Valsartan Sanctions Ruling

July 17, 2024: New Valsartan Lawsuit

A new Valsartan lawsuit was filed in the MDL on behalf of a New Jersey man who is suing Zhejiang and Aurobindo, among others.

This litigation generally involves seven types of cancer:  liver, kidney, stomach, colorectal, pancreatic, esophageal, and small intestine.  But there is no question there is science that supports colon cancer claims, which is the injury this man is claiming.

July 14, 2024: Not Looking Back on Old Rulings

Judge Bumb’s new order is clear that the court intends to follow Judge Kugler’s decision to proceed with the TPP class trial, dismissing defense arguments for reconsideration. The court found the defense’s claims, such as the assertion that a trial would “end in reversible error,” to be unconstructive.

The first Valsartan trial is set for November 2024. Judge Blumb instructed the parties to come to the next conference prepared to discuss in limine motions and the implications of the Mansouri study, noting a significant disconnect between the parties on this issue. This study, titled “N-nitrosodimethylamine-Contaminated Valsartan and Risk of Cancer,” conducted by Imène Mansouri and colleagues, was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association. Defendants think the study is reason to reopen Daubert hearings; plaintiffs roll their eyes at this because the study actually found that patients exposed to contaminated valsartan had a higher risk of liver cancer and melanoma.

It is clear the first case is going to trial unless the defendants step up and  make a reasonable settlement offer.

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

Plaintiffs have had direct settlement talks with Teva and Torrent and attended an in-person mediation with the Special Masters on January 26, 2024, which was unsuccessful.  Plaintiffs are ready to resume talks with Teva and Torrent.

Settlement talks with the ZHP defendants, who are the big defendants in these cases, has gone nowhere. It is hard to imagine a reasonable Valsartan settlement with them without a few big verdicts at trial.

July 5, 2024 – Valsartan Case Count

There are 1,254 Valsartan lawsuits pending in the MDL.

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

As we head into tomorrow’s case management conference, plaintiffs request that defendants produce financial information relevant to punitive damages for the Valsartan case. On February 20, 2024, the plaintiff’s lawyers learned that defense counsel would not seek to bifurcate punitive damages at trial, prompting plaintiffs to promptly request financial documents on February 23, 2024.

The documents requested include financial statements, tax returns, bank statements, asset and income documentation, liabilities, and information on trusts and other entities. Defendants have refused, claiming the request was not timely. Plaintiffs argue that financial information is crucial for determining punitive damages, as required by the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act. The request is timely and necessary for providing up-to-date financial data for trial.

Plaintiffs seek a court order for Defendants to produce the documents at least 30 days before each trial or, at minimum, provide updated net worth and gross revenue data with currency conversions.

The defendants are fighting this tooth and nail because they fear – with good reason – punitive damages in this litigation.

June 15, 2024 – Sanctions Hearing

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

This is an important deposition. Chen was directly involved in the core issues of the case – the development, manufacture, sale, and recall of ZHP’s Valsartan. Plaintiffs’ lawyers also say that ZHP also failed to comply fully with court orders to produce relevant documents, including an email from July 27, 2017, which discussed contamination issues and an internal report on nitrosamine impurities. One of the core allegations in this case – one that could result in punitive damages – is that ZHP, under Chen’s direction, covered up 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, became one of the most recent plaintiffs to file 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 asserts that the plaintiff developed prostate cancer as a result of NDMA contamination in the Valsartan and asserts ten separate causes of action. The case was filed directly in the MDL using the Short-Form-Complaint.

June 6, 2024 – Settlement Rumors

There is a lot of buzz about Valsartan settlements. There have been settlements with Hetero, a relatively small defendant who only sold contaminated Valsartan for two months and had lower levels of MDMA contamination. This is not a new development. Will there be settlements with the larger defendants in the near future? You never know when a settlement will break, but this is one of those pieces of litigation where a few verdicts might be necessary to get the defendants to offer fair settlement amounts.

May 23, 2024 – New Judge

A new MDL judge, U.S. District Judge Renee M. Bumb, has taken over the litigation after Judge Robert B. Kugler retired.

Valsartan lawyers are still preparing groups of cases for trial to gauge jury responses to evidence and testimony and to help determine settlement amounts. Will we get that far, or will the cases all settle before that? It remains to be seen.

May 2, 2024 – Types of Cases Linked to Valsartan

These are the conditions our Valsartan lawyer are targeting:

• 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?

There have been some Valsartan settlements. Judge Kugler appointed two retired judges as mediators to resolve outstanding lawsuits. The hope is the rest of the lawsuits settle soon.

March 27 2024 – Valsartan Motions

The MDL judge ruled ahead of the bellwether trial that drug labels stating “valsartan” implied a promise about the safety of these generic blood pressure medications, which is good news. But it remains contested whether this assurance was broken due to alleged contamination with a carcinogenic substance.

We think these cases will settle before there is a trial. It is hard to imagine what good would come for the defendants in not settling these cases or at least settling the bellwether to buy time. But we will see..

January 10, 2024 – Experts in the Valsartan Litigation

Here are the experts who have been named in the Valsartan MDL:

The court put this list together in its January 5th ruling.

January 5, 2024 – Expert Rulings

The court made a huge ruling on what experts can and cannot say at trial. The court used a knife, not a machete, and thin sliced the report. For most experts, the judge allowed some opinions and excluded some opinions.

Valsartan Recall

In 2018, the FDA announced a major recall of prescription blood pressure and heart drugs containing the active ingredient valsartan. Valsartan is widely used in several brand-name and generic drugs (Diofan, Exforge, etc.) to treat hypertension and heart failure. It was recently discovered that when valsartan is manufactured in a certain way, it can contain a dangerous impurity called N-nitrosodimethylamine (NMDA).

The drugs at issue are generic versions of certain blood pressure and heart failure medications. In July 2018, some companies started recalling these drugs after the FDA found tiny amounts of a harmful chemical called NDMA in some batches. NDMA is also found in water, food, and grilled meats. Later, in November 2018, more batches were recalled because of another harmful chemical, NDEA.

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

Known Carcinogen

NMDA is a known human carcinogen. The valsartan medications containing the dangerous NMDA impurity have been linked to a specific pharmaceutical ingredient distributed by a Chinese company — Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals. Zhejiang Huahai was manufacturing the contaminated valsartan component and selling it to several U.S. pharmaceutical companies, including Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Solco Healthcare. Zhejiang Huahai discovered NMDA impurities in its product which eventually led to the FDA recall.

All valsartan products manufactured with ingredients from the Zhejiang Huahai company were immediately recalled for safety reasons. According to the FDA, the NDMA impurities in the drugs were “totally unexpected” and believed to be caused by changes in the way certain ingredients were manufactured by the company in China.

The FDA followed up with a full investigation into the recalled products and the NDMA contamination. This investigation revealed that the NDMA 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 drugs are made with ingredients from Zhejiang Huahai. The list of all recalled drugs is below:

Drug Name                                                     Manufacturer

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?

NDMA is a type of chemical compound that is often created as a byproduct of chemical processes that are used to manufacture various products. NDMA is created in the manufacture of rubber tires, chemical pesticides, and the processing of fish for market sale.

A small trace amount of NDMA is often found in certain processed foods (again as the byproduct of the way the food is produced).

NDMA is classified as a human carcinogen (meaning it is believed to cause cancer in humans). Numerous animal studies have established that NDMA can cause cancer in the liver, gastrointestinal system, and kidneys.

Research indicates that NDMA forms during the manufacturing process under certain conditions, particularly when specific chemicals react under high temperatures. This issue in the Valsartan litigation is believed to stem from changes in manufacturing processes that increased NDMA levels beyond safe thresholds.

Potential Injuries from the Valsartan Products

It is very unclear how long the recalled Valsartan products may have been on the market while containing the dangerous NDMA impurities.

However, all of the recalled valsartan drugs are long-term “maintenance” medications that patients usually take every day for years. Therefore, it is very possible that many individuals could have been ingesting drugs contaminated with NDMA daily for many years. This sort of long-term exposure to a known carcinogen creates a very serious health risk. NDMA exposure is strongly linked to certain 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 prompted a wave of product liability lawsuits. Since the 2018 recall, around 1,100 Valsartan lawsuits have been filed. Most of the Valsartan lawsuits ended up in federal courts and were eventually consolidated into a class-action MDL in the District of New Jersey (Valsartan MDL). There are currently over 1,000 active cases pending in the Valsartan MDL.

The plaintiffs in these Valsartan lawsuits are individuals who used prescription drugs containing valsartan to treat high blood pressure for extended periods and were subsequently diagnosed with one of the cancer types linked to NDMA. Plaintiffs in the Valsartan lawsuits are claiming that their cancer was directly caused by the NDMA in the Valsartan medication they were using. There is significant and reliable scientific evidence linking NDMA consumption to various cancers.

Who Are the Valsartan Defendants?

Defendants in this case are entities involved in the U.S. supply chain for generic medications Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan. Specifically for Valsartan, they are categorized into six groups:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Finished Dose Distributors: Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.; Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC; Torrent Pharma, Inc.; Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
4. Wholesalers: AmerisourceBergen Corporation (now Cencora, Inc.); Cardinal Health, Inc.; McKesson Corporation.

Valsartan Lawsuits

Plaintiffs’ lawyers in Valsartan lawsuits argue that the manufacturers failed to ensure the purity and safety of their products, thereby exposing consumers to harmful carcinogens. Legal strategies focus on proving negligence in quality control and lack of transparency in disclosing the potential risks associated with the drug.

A critical component of these cases involves demonstrating the causation between NDMA exposure and the specific cancers developed by plaintiffs. Lawyers rely on 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 science is pretty strong for plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers also aim to show that the manufacturers had prior knowledge—or reasonably should have had knowledge—of the risks associated with NDMA but chose not to act swiftly or effectively to mitigate these risks.  The main defendant in this litigation has dodged much of the discovery on this point which led to the court ordering sanctions as we discuss in the July 24, 2024 update above.

Settlement Value of Valsartan Lawsuits

None of the Valsartan cancer lawsuits have settled or gone to trial yet, so we don’t know exactly how much these cases could be worth. However, our attorneys can offer a reasonable estimate of their likely Valsartan settlement amounts by looking at payouts in prior cases. For purposes of valuing the Valsartan lawsuits, our lawyer focuses on average settlement values in other tort cases involving similar cancers and also prior mass tort settlements.

Based on these points of comparison, we think a reasonable estimate for the potential settlement value of valsartan cancer cases in the top settlement tier will be around $150,000 to $200,000.

The valsartan cases in the highest settlement tier will be those involving the worst types of cancer with the lowest survival rates (e.g., pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, etc.) Valsartan cases involving somewhat more survivable types of cancer (kidney, colon, etc.) could end up in a second settlement tier with a possible value of around $90,000 to $125,000.

Contact a Lawyer If You Took Valsartan and Now Have Cancer

If you have been taking one of the recalled valsartan drugs and have been diagnosed with cancer, you should contact Miller & Zois to discuss whether you have a potential claim.

There is a class action lawsuit that we discussed above that may lead to financial settlements for Valsartan victims. Get a free online consultation or call 800-553-8082.