Indianapolis Dupixent® Injections and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma Lawyer

Schedule a free case review with a Dupixent® litigation attorney who handles serious-injury matters.

If you have been diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after receiving Dupixent® injections, you may have a product liability claim against the drug’s manufacturers. Lawsuits filed across the country allege that Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals knew or should have known about the connection between dupilumab (the active ingredient in Dupixent®) and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and that they failed to warn patients or the physicians prescribing it.

Ward & Ward Personal Injury Lawyers is currently accepting Dupixent® litigation clients in Indianapolis and throughout Indiana. Attorneys Donald W. Ward and Charles P. Ward have handled product liability and personal injury matters for decades. If you need an Indianapolis, IN Dupixent® injections and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma lawyer, contact our office for a free consultation.

Dupixent® Injections and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma Lawyer Indianapolis, IN

A Dupixent® lawsuit is a product liability claim against Sanofi and Regeneron. Dupixent® is an injectable biologic prescribed for atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and a growing list of other Type 2 inflammatory conditions. The lawsuits allege that the drug can trigger, unmask, or accelerate cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma that originates in the skin, and that the manufacturers knew about this risk and did not disclose it.

What makes CTCL particularly dangerous in this context is that it mimics the very conditions Dupixent® treats, such as patchy/dry skin, rashes that won’t resolve, and persistent itching. A patient on Dupixent® for eczema who notices these symptoms has every reason to assume the underlying condition is flaring, not that a cancer is developing. That overlap between disease and side effects is at the heart of these lawsuits. Published research has identified a statistically significant association between dupilumab use and elevated CTCL risk. The FDA’s FAERS database flagged dupilumab as a potential signal for serious safety concerns, and plaintiffs filed a motion in early 2026 to consolidate the federal cases into a multidistrict litigation.

Types of Dupixent® Cases We Handle in Indianapolis

Ward & Ward Personal Injury Lawyers represent clients in Indianapolis, IN, across the following categories of Dupixent® claims:

• CTCL diagnosis after Dupixent® use. Patients who received injections for at least one month and were later diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, including mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, or another subtype, form the core of this litigation. At the center of each claim is the same failure: the manufacturers did not add a CTCL warning to the drug’s label.
• Worsening of pre-existing CTCL. Some patients carried a slow-growing, undiagnosed cutaneous T-cell lymphoma before they ever started Dupixent®. In these cases, the drug appears to have accelerated the cancer’s progression. What had been a manageable condition became aggressive, and the delay in recognizing the true diagnosis meant lost treatment time.
• Delayed diagnosis cases. The symptom overlap between CTCL and eczema is the root of this problem. Patients stayed on Dupixent® for months, sometimes years, while the actual cancer went undetected underneath what everyone assumed was a dermatological condition. By the time the correct diagnosis was made, the disease had often advanced beyond early-stage treatment options.
• Wrongful death. Advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma can spread to lymph nodes and internal organs. When Dupixent® use contributed to a patient’s death from CTCL, surviving family members may bring a wrongful death claim against the manufacturers.
• Cases involving multiple conditions. Dupixent® is prescribed for eczema, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis, and several other inflammatory conditions. The original indication does not limit the claim. If you received the drug for any qualifying condition and developed CTCL, you may have a viable case.

Why Choose Ward & Ward Personal Injury Lawyers for a Dupixent® Lawsuit in Indianapolis, IN?

Attorneys With a History of Product Liability Advocacy

Donald W. Ward was admitted to the Indiana Bar in 1954 and has spent his entire career on the plaintiff side. That includes product liability cases and medical malpractice matters at every level of complexity. He served on the Indiana Judicial Nominating and Qualifications Commission across three separate terms and received the American Trial Lawyers Association Stalwart Award, recognizing 25 years of sustained contribution to trial advocacy. Charles P. Ward has practiced since 1989. He holds an AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, has been named to Best Lawyers in America for personal injury litigation, and is a member of the Indianapolis Bar Association and the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association.

Ward & Ward Personal Injury Lawyers has helped clients recover millions of dollars in personal injury and product liability matters across Indiana. Our personal injury lawyer in Indianapolis, IN takes Dupixent® cases on contingency. No upfront fees, and no attorney costs unless we recover compensation for you.

What Is Important to Understand About a Dupixent® Case?

Damages, Liability, and Compensation for Dupixent® Cases

The plaintiffs allege that Sanofi and Regeneron sold a drug with a serious cancer risk and never told the people taking it. That is a product liability claim, and the damages reflect how much a CTCL diagnosis can cost a person.

Economic damages start with cancer treatment. Economic damages encompass the full scope of medical treatment costs, including biopsies, chemotherapy, radiation, phototherapy, and blood draws every few weeks, along with dermatological monitoring that does not end. Lost wages incurred during treatment and reduced earning capacity are also included when the illness prevents a return to work at the same level. Those costs climb fast when the diagnosis is delayed. A patient whose cancer had time to progress before it was identified faces a longer, more expensive treatment course.

Non-economic damages cover what no invoice captures. Non-economic damages address what cannot be reduced to an invoice, including a cancer diagnosis that might have been prevented, pain from the treatment itself, and the psychological weight of knowing that a drug taken for relief may have caused a malignancy. The loss of ability to work, parent, or live the way you did before the diagnosis is also compensable.

The liability question comes down to knowledge and timing. Studies linking dupilumab to CTCL have been published for several years now. The FDA’s adverse event reporting system has logged hundreds of lymphoma reports tied to Dupixent®. Plaintiffs argue that Sanofi and Regeneron had this data and did nothing with it. Indiana’s product liability statute of limitations under Indiana Code § 34-20-3-1 requires claims to be filed within two years of the date the cause of action accrues. The state’s modified comparative fault rule under Indiana Code § 34-51-2-6 applies as well.

What Are Important Aspects of a Dupixent® Case?

This litigation has features that separate it from other pharmaceutical injury claims. Several of them require attention from the start.

• Injection records are foundational. Your Dupixent usage history needs to be documented, including dates, dosages, which physician prescribed the drug, and for which condition it was prescribed. Pharmacy records and medical charts are where this documentation lives, and without it, proving the duration of exposure becomes difficult.
• The CTCL diagnosis needs pathological confirmation from a biopsy, not just a clinical impression. Whether the subtype is mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, or something else affects the treatment trajectory and the value of the case.
• Timing patterns matter. Research indicates that Dupixent® patients who develop CTCL tend to be diagnosed within the first year of treatment, and at younger ages than would typically be expected. Whether your timeline fits that pattern is something your attorney will examine closely.
• The litigation itself is young. A motion to consolidate the federal cases into an MDL was filed in early 2026.If granted, a single judge will oversee pretrial proceedings for all federal Dupixent® cases, including discovery, motions, and depositions.
• Diagnostic confusion will define many of these claims. If a physician continued prescribing Dupixent® while the patient’s symptoms were actually cancer and not eczema, the failure-to-warn allegation takes on even greater weight. The manufacturer’s silence made that misidentification more likely.

What Is the Dupixent® Case Timeline?

The litigation is new. No bellwether trials have been held, and no settlements have been reached. But individual cases are following a recognizable path.

• An attorney reviews your medical records, injection history, and CTCL diagnosis to confirm eligibility.
• The case is filed. If in federal court and the MDL consolidation is approved, it transfers to a single district for coordinated pretrial work.
• Discovery targets Sanofi and Regeneron’s internal safety data, clinical trial records, post-marketing surveillance reports, and communications with the FDA.
• Depositions follow, involving company officials, researchers, regulatory contacts, and treating physicians.
• If the litigation follows the typical MDL trajectory, bellwether trials would test a handful of representative cases and set the tone for settlement negotiations across the remaining claims.
• Individual cases resolve through settlement or trial. The timeline remains less defined than in the Depo-Provera® or talcum powder litigations, which are further along procedurally.

What Should You Bring to Your Dupixent® Consultation?

Organizing your records in advance lets your attorney evaluate the claim more quickly. Bring what you can from this list:

• Medical records that confirm the CTCL diagnosis, including biopsy and pathology
• Your Dupixent® injection history including dates, dosages, prescriber, and the condition being treated
• Records of cancer treatment received so far, including chemotherapy, radiation, or phototherapy
• Documentation of income lost or employment affected by the diagnosis
• Insurance and benefits information

Your attorney will assess the facts, determine whether your case fits within the current litigation, and walk you through the next steps. This consultation is free and carries no obligation.

What Are Important Indiana Legal Resources for Dupixent® Cases?

Federal product liability law governs the bulk of the Dupixent® litigation, but Indiana state law applies to claims filed by Indiana residents. These resources offer a starting point:

• Indiana Code § 34-20-3-1 sets a two-year statute of limitations for product liability claims based on negligence or strict liability, running from the date the cause of action accrues.
• Indiana Code § 34-51-2-6 establishes the modified comparative fault rule. Recovery is barred if the claimant’s own fault exceeds 50 percent.
• The FDA adverse event reporting system has identified dupilumab as a potential signal of serious risk. The agency continues to evaluate the need for regulatory action.
• The Indiana General Assembly website provides full access to the Indiana Code, including the product liability statutes in Title 34, Article 20.
• The FDA MedWatch program allows patients and healthcare professionals to report adverse events associated with pharmaceutical products.

Reach Out to Ward & Ward Personal Injury Lawyers to Schedule a Consultation

If you have been diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after receiving Dupixent® injections in Indianapolis, IN, Ward & Ward Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your case and advise you on whether you qualify for the current litigation. We handle these cases on contingency. No upfront costs, and no attorney fees unless we recover compensation on your behalf. Contact us to schedule a free and confidential case review with a Dupixent® litigation attorney at Ward & Ward Personal Injury Lawyers.