A couple has filed a lawsuit against Sanofi Aventis, makers of the chemotherapy drug Taxotere, after the wife developed severe, disfiguring side effects.

Plaintiffs Leonna and Charlie J. brought forth this action against Taxotere’s manufacturer following Leonna’s development of permanent alopecia after chemo treatment with Taxotere.

Leonna underwent breast cancer treatments with Taxotere from December 2010 through March 2011.

She allegedly suffered from alopecia after chemo and still experiences permanent hair loss today she attributes to the use of Taxotere.

This alopecia after chemo has affected Leonna psychologically, economically and physically, she says and further claims her life and her husband’s were negatively impacted by Taxotere.

Does Taxotere Cause Permanent Alopecia?

Taxotere is a chemotherapy drug that is used to treat various types of cancers, including breast cancer. What many women do not know, however, is that Taxotere can cause permanent alopecia after chemo.

Most women expect that they will lose their hair during chemotherapy, but anticipate it will grow back starting several months after their treatment is complete. However, with Taxotere, for some reason, the hair does not always grow back.

As the lawsuit states, “Permanent alopecia is a disfiguring condition, especially for women.” It is socially acceptable for a man to be bald much more so than it is for women. And this can have very traumatic psychological consequences.”

The lawsuit states that misleading marketing of Taxotere in the United States resulted in women developing permanent alopecia after chemo without even knowing it was a possibility.

Furthermore, the lawsuit states that the manufacturers of Taxotere provided false claims of superior efficacy of their drug.

In fact, the FDA warned the makers of Taxotere, stating the advertisements were misleading because “they suggest that Taxotere is more effective and has been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial experience.”

The action also claims that the manufacturers of Taxotere omitted important safety information, thus misleading physicians, health care professionals and the public regarding the risk of developing permanent alopecia after chemo.

A study, known as the GEICAM 9805, showed that 9.2% of patients taking Taxotere continued to suffer from permanent alopecia for more than a decade.

“Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the relevant findings from the GEICAM 9805 study, as well as reports of patients who had taken Taxotere and suffered from permanent alopecia, Defendants failed to provide accurate information and proper warnings to physicians, healthcare providers, and patients in the United States, including Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states.

The complaint goes on to state that despite the manufacturers of Taxotere warning physicians, patients and the public of the potential for developing permanent alopecia after chemo treatment with Taxotere in both Canada and the European Union, the manufacturers withheld this information from the U.S. public until December 2015.

Leonna and Charlie have brought forth a number of counts against the manufacturer including strict liability for inadequate warnings and instructions, negligence, fraud, punitive damages and loss of consortium (spousal companionship).

The couple is seeking an award of compensatory damages for “pain and suffering, medical and hospital expenses, permanent disability, punitive or exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, restitution, disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief as well as any further relief as deemed necessary and proper by the court.”

Taking Legal Action over Permanent Alopecia after Chemo

If you or a loved one has suffered from permanent alopecia after chemo treatment with Taxotere, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit against the drug’s manufacturers in order to recover losses. An experienced Taxotere attorney can review your potential case at no charge to you and can help guide you in understanding your legal options.

The Taxotere Lawsuit is Case No. 2:16-cv-16796, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.