Actos Lawsuit Compensation: Calculating What Your Case Is Worth
Actos lawsuit compensation can be substantial depending on your situation. Find out how to calculate what your case might be worth by contacting an Actos bladder cancer attorney so that you can decide for yourself whether filing an Actos lawsuit is your best interests.
Bladder Cancer Is Bad in Any Stage
Bladder cancer is bad no matter what stage it's in - and Actos injury lawyers say that anyone who has developed bladder cancer after using Actos should be entitled to compensation. Those levels of compensation depend on how significant the injury is, whether the injury requires extensive treatment or hospitalization, the extent of medical bills related to the injury, how much time was lost from work to make a claim for lost wages and things of that nature.
Compensation might also depend upon the stage in which the cancer was first discovered. For instance, if the cancer wasn't discovered until stage four, that person would likely have missed more time from work than someone whose cancer was discovered in stage one. However, it's important to understand that every case is specific and affects people in different ways - both physically and mentally. It's the latter that can be difficult to assess.
If someone's bladder cancer went into remission, he or she may spend years afterward worrying about whether it will return - especially if they're young. For others whose cancer did not go into remission, they are likely to spend their days wondering how long they will survive.
In some situations, extensive surgeries may be required to remove part of the bladder. Some bladder cancer patients may have to have their bladder completely removed - which would likely result in using a colostomy bag for the rest of their lives. As bad as that may be in and of itself, it may also result in being unable to participate in activities that were an important part of their lives such as swimming, running or other sports.
Most individuals that are placed on a diabetic therapy remain on the diabetic therapy for the rest of their lives. The increased risk of developing bladder cancer starts after only 12 months, so it's a very short period before that risk can actually materialize into a life threatening situation.
Regardless of the situation, it cannot be denied that there are both physical and emotional aspects that come with having cancer of any kind. It's when that cancer could have been avoided - and in many cases simply by pharmaceutical companies providing warnings for injuries they knew about - that juries may understandably be more sympathetic.
Actos Diabetic Macular Edema Injuries
As if an increased risk of bladder cancer wasn't enough, a recent Bloomberg study suggests that Actos use may also cause diabetic macular edema (DME) injuries - a swelling of the retina that can lead to blindness - which the National Eye Institute says is the leading cause of blindness for Americans of working age. Bloomberg presented a study at the annual American Diabetes Association meeting in California and reported that Actos users were three to six times more likely to develop DME.
Don't Go it Alone
Actos bladder cancer victims and Actos eye injury victims should contact an experienced pharmaceutical litigation attorney who is familiar with these types of injuries to discuss their situation, determine what types of compensation may be available to them and obtain more information about pending litigation.
It's important to note that, although Takeda Pharmaceuticals is a Japanese company, it has offices in Chicago, Illinois - so injured victims should not be concerned about international lawsuit issues. As such, there will likely be a lot of Actos injury lawsuits filed in state court in Illinois.
Although it's too early to tell, Actos bladder cancer lawsuits may result in federal multi-district litigation (MDL) so that cases filed in federal court in different federal jurisdictions can be consolidated before one judge, which allows both sides to consolidate their efforts in front of one judge. Doing so provides consistent rulings from one judge instead of getting hundreds of inconsistent rulings from different judges throughout the United States - which ultimately allows both sides to keep their expenses down considerably.