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.
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.
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.
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.
We just released a new Suboxone video that provides an update on where we are in the litigation in February 2025.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Developed as a medication to combat opioid addiction, Suboxone emerged as a beacon of hope amid the opioid crisis. Approved by the FDA in 2002, Suboxone offered an alternative for individuals battling opioid dependence. Its primary active ingredients, buprenorphine and naloxone, were carefully combined to mitigate misuse while easing withdrawal symptoms.
Suboxone’s development goes back to the 1960s, a time when the wonder drug buprenorphine first made its entrance. Buprenorphine, a semi-synthetic opioid, was a curious creation—it could numb pain and simultaneously block the effects of opioids like heroin and morphine. But Buprenorphine and Suboxone are distinct medications. Suboxone is a combination drug designed specifically for managing opioid dependence, consisting of two active ingredients. Buprenorphine, on the other hand, is an opioid agonist used for addressing opioid dependence or for the management of moderate-to-severe pain. As the 1970s dawned, researchers began poking around the potential of buprenorphine as a solution for managing opioid use disorder (OUD). They were drawn to it because it seemed to outshine other OUD medications like methadone. Why? For starters, it had a lower risk of overdose. Plus, it could be conveniently taken by dissolving under the tongue, making it seem less appealing for abuse. Fast forward to 1995, and buprenorphine got the FDA’s approval for pain relief. In 2002, the FDA gave the nod to Suboxone, a combination medication that blended buprenorphine with naloxone, an opioid antagonist.
No one is arguing that Suboxone has become an essential weapon in treating addiction in 2024. The plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit are not calling for a Suboxone recall. What these attorneys are arguing is that drugmakers like Indivior are responsible for fully disclosing all known risks associated with their products. This transparency gives patients the ability to make informed decisions. (It also gives them the opportunity, as we discuss above, to mitigate the harm of the side effects. Unlike some side effects, dental risks can often be mitigated through preventive measures like rinsing the mouth after use, increasing fluoride intake, or scheduling more frequent dental checkups.) By failing to provide adequate warnings about the risk of severe dental injuries, Suboxone manufacturers deprived patients of the ability to take proactive steps to protect their health. Without proper warnings, patients are left in the dark, unable to take these precautions and suffering avoidable harm as a result. The crux of these lawsuits is simple: patients deserve the information needed to make informed choices.
The original labels for Suboxone tablets and film carried no warnings regarding the risk of tooth damage associated with their prescribed use. But Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits alleged the defendants had plenty of reason to know of the risk and put a tooth decay warning on the product.
By 2012, a case report published by Harvard Medical School professors had already shed light on a troubling side effect associated with the long-term use of Suboxone, a combination of buprenorphine and naloxone prescribed to manage opioid dependence. The report detailed the case of a patient who, after 18 months of stable treatment with Suboxone tablets, experienced a rapid and severe decline in oral health. This individual, who had no significant history of dental issues, suddenly required extensive dental interventions to treat decay across multiple teeth. The Harvard professors hypothesized that the chronic use of sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone may have played a pivotal role in the patient’s dental deterioration. They guessed at the obvious: Suboxone is administered under the tongue, and the sublingual route of delivery may expose the oral cavity to prolonged contact with the medication. The case report prompted further discussions on the potential dental risks for patients using Suboxone long-term, suggesting that healthcare providers consider these risks and monitor the oral health of patients on such treatments. But the defendants appeared to have done nothing but let the profits keep rolling in.
In 2013, the lead author of the 2012 case report and other Harvard colleagues published a case series featuring eleven patients who experienced worsening dental health after initiating buprenorphine treatment at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. These cases, recorded between May and November 2012, involved individuals with opioid dependence who exhibited deteriorating dental health following the start of buprenorphine treatment. The patients in the study suffered from various dental issues, including cavities, fillings, cracked teeth, crowns needing replacement, root canal treatments, and tooth extractions. The researchers pointed out – remember, this was 11 years ago – that cavities and tooth erosion typically occur in environments where the pH level is low.
Suboxone has a low pH of 3.4 when dissolved in water, indicating a high level of acidity. The pH scale, which ranges from 0 to 14, is used to measure the acidity or alkalinity of a substance. A pH of 7 is considered neutral, while values below 7 indicate increasing acidity, and values above 7 indicate alkalinity. The mouth’s natural pH typically ranges between 6.2 and 7.0, which is slightly acidic but generally safe for maintaining tooth health. Tooth enamel, the hard outer layer of teeth, begins to demineralize when exposed to an acidic environment, specifically when the pH drops below 5.5. At this point, the enamel starts to lose essential minerals such as calcium and phosphate. It leads to weakening the tooth structure. This makes teeth more susceptible to cavities and decay. This is not complicated. When substances like Suboxone, with a significantly acidic pH, come into prolonged contact with teeth, they can accelerate this demineralization process. Acidic environments can result from multiple sources, including certain foods, beverages, bacterial activity, and conditions like dry mouth. These factors lower the mouth’s pH and, over time, contribute to tooth erosion. Given Suboxone’s acidic pH, the drug creates a terribly persistent low pH in the mouth, weakening enamel and causes dental injuries. So the makers of Suboxone did not even need these studies to be clued into the dental injuries that prolonged contact between tooth surfaces and Suboxone could beat down a patient’s teeth. It was obvious.
Xerostomia, commonly referred to as dry mouth, is a condition characterized by insufficient saliva production from the salivary glands. This insufficiency can result in various issues, including a decreased pH level within the oral cavity. Saliva plays a crucial role in maintaining oral health by rinsing away food particles and bacteria, neutralizing oral acids, stabilizing the mouth’s pH balance, and ensuring the mouth remains moist and lubricated. When saliva production is reduced, the mouth’s pH level can decline, potentially leading to dental decay, cavities, oral infections, and even tooth loss. Dry mouth can arise from various factors, including Suboxone use, medical conditions like diabetes, Sjögren’s syndrome, and HIV, the natural aging process, radiation therapy to the head and neck, chemotherapy, tobacco consumption, and alcohol consumption. Suboxone, in particular, has the potential to induce dry mouth. When there is a shortage of saliva, the accumulation of bacteria can contribute to the development of tooth decay, which will be a focus of why so many of these Suboxone users have cavities and severe tooth decay.
Yet despite the increasing evidence linking dental problems to Suboxone and the fact that the drug is acidic, the companies responsible (referred to as “Defendants”) should have taken steps to update the drug’s label. This update would have warned users about the potential risks to their dental health. An update would have avoided any suboxone class action lawsuit or personal injury claims. But here we are. The defendants chose not to take any action. Suboxone lawsuits allege that the defendants ignored the growing body of research, adverse-event reports, and even their own knowledge about how acidic the drug is. They failed to fulfill their responsibility to address the possible harm Suboxone use could pose to patients’ dental health. What’s even more concerning is that despite the mounting evidence connecting Suboxone to dental issues and the fact that the drug is acidic, Indivior should have taken steps to update the drug’s label. Such an update would have included a warning to users about the potential risks to their dental health while using Suboxone. And let’s face it, most recovering addicts spend a significant time without focusing on dental hygiene. This is a vulnerable population in the first place that is not always well funded for detailed work that may not be covered by insurance. So we are left with people trying to rebuild their lives after battling opioid addiction who were prescribed Suboxone and believe it’s a safe and effective way to overcome addiction. These people trusted that the drug would aid their recovery, and if there were risks associated with it, they would know about it. But those responsible for creating and promoting Suboxone didn’t inform patients about the potential risks to their dental health.
Do you need more proof that a Suboxone dental problem warning was necessary? There is a warning now. In January 2022, Suboxone added a warning about potential dental issues associated with Suboxone use. Specifically, the warning highlights that Suboxone can potentially lead to tooth decay, cavities, oral infections, and even tooth loss.
So, what does all this mean? It means that the people who were supposed to ensure your safety while using Suboxone failed to do so.
They didn’t provide the necessary warnings, instructions, or information about the potential dental dangers. This negligence and lack of transparency jeopardized, for many of you reading this, your health and prevented you from making informed decisions about your treatment.
At the heart of every Suboxone lawsuit lies a “failure to warn” claim, which centers on the allegation that the manufacturers of Suboxone did not adequately inform consumers or healthcare providers about the potential risks and side effects associated with its use.
A failure to warn claim is a legal argument used in product liability law, asserting that a product’s manufacturer or distributor did not sufficiently communicate the dangers or adverse effects of the product to those who purchased or used it.
This lack of proper warning can lead to consumers suffering injuries or adverse health effects that they might have avoided had they been fully informed about the product’s risks.
In the context of Suboxone, these lawsuits contend that the manufacturer failed to provide comprehensive information about the drug’s potential to cause harm, leading to legal actions based on the premise that patients and doctors were not properly warned of the risks involved in its use.
A growing number of Suboxone product liability lawsuits are being filed in courts nationwide. The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers of Suboxone engaged in wrongful and negligent conduct in connection with the development, design, testing, labeling, packaging, promoting, advertising, marketing, distribution, and selling of Suboxone.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Suboxone, when used as prescribed and intended, causes harmful damage to the teeth due to buprenorphine’s acidity.
Despite that knowledge, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that the manufacturers initially sold and marketed Suboxone without warning about tooth decay risks.
In January 2022, the FDA issued a public drug safety communication warning about the risks of tooth decay associated with Suboxone. Only after the FDA issued this public warning did the makers of Suboxone revise the warning label for the drug to include a warning about the risk of tooth decay.
That is a classic example of negligent failure to warn, and the manufacturers’ liability appears to be clear and hard to defend.
The primary defendant in the Suboxone lawsuits is Indivior, Inc., the pharmaceutical company that makes and sells Suboxone. Indivior is a specialty pharmaceutical company that primarily focuses on developing and selling drugs, like Suboxone, which are used to treat opioid dependency.
Indivor was formerly a division of the British pharmaceutical company Reckitt Benckiser (Reckitt). In 2014, however, Reckitt spun off Indivior and its rapidly expanding opioid addiction treatment business into a new, publicly traded company.
The Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits generally name Indivior, Reckitt, and their various U.S. operating entities as defendants. Primary liability for the Suboxone liabilities will ultimately fall on Indivior, a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange and well capitalized.
Indivior has a checkered past. In 2019, the Department of Justice indicted the company for false marketing claims and a scheme to direct patients to doctors who were likely to prescribe Suboxone.
One of the other primary defendants in the Suboxone lawsuits is Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Aquestive and Indivior developed Suboxone jointly.
Many people refer to the Suboxone litigation as a class action lawsuit. We do ourselves, actually. But technically, this is not a class action—it is a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).
The Suboxone MDL (MDL No. 3092) is already pending in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, where lawsuits from across the country have been consolidated before Judge Philip Calabrese. This MDL was established to streamline pretrial proceedings for plaintiffs who allege that Suboxone film caused severe dental injuries, such as tooth decay, loss, and erosion, due to its acidic formulation.
An MDL works similarly to a class action in that it consolidates many cases to improve efficiency. However, each plaintiff retains an individual lawsuit, meaning settlements or verdicts are based on the specific facts of each case.
The MDL process allows a single judge to oversee key pretrial proceedings, including discovery, motions, and expert testimony, which helps ensure consistent rulings and speeds up the litigation.
A major feature of an MDL is the bellwether trial process—a series of test trials in which a few representative cases are selected for early jury trials. These bellwether cases help both plaintiffs and defendants gauge how juries are likely to respond to the evidence.
The verdicts in bellwether trials set the tone for settlement negotiations. If juries return large verdicts for plaintiffs, it increases the likelihood of a global settlement in which the defendants agree to pay compensation to resolve all or most of the cases.
While this process can lead to substantial settlements for victims, it differs from a traditional class action because there is no single settlement fund—each plaintiff’s case is still considered individually.
If you are considering filing a Suboxone lawsuit, you want to understand that while this litigation may feel like a class action, it is actually an MDL—meaning your case is part of a larger legal process, but your potential compensation will be based on your individual circumstances. In this litigation, we think that is the best of both worlds
Our lawyers currently estimate that the settlement payout value of Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits will be somewhere around $50,000 to $150,000. Very small cases will be lot less and you can expect settlement over this range, too.
Keep in mind, however, that this is the settlement value of these cases. If Suboxone cases go to trial, the verdict payout could be significantly higher, including punitive damages. We think the potential value of Suboxone cases at trial could be more than $1 million.
Is this compensation prediction premature? Absolutely. We are in the very early stages of the Suboxone tooth decay litigation, which makes it impossible to predict with any certainty what the ultimate Suboxone settlement amounts might be.
If you want to call that pure speculation, that is not unfair. It is nearly impossible to project the average Suboxone lawsuit payout per person with so little information.
Moreover, who will qualify is not yet set in concrete. For some cases, there will be statute of limitations issues that might make some cases worth less. But assuming these cases are successful and backed by strong evidence linking Suboxone to dental damage, our Suboxone lawyers believe this estimate is a reasonable starting point.
Some victims are frustrated we do not have high Suboxone settlement projections because that is not enough compensation for everything they have gone through. Our attorneys get that. It would be easy for us to say the average settlement will be $500,000. It would help us get more clients. But we have an obligation to tell you what we think and that is what we are doing.
Above, we talk about when we expect there to be a Suboxone settlement.
In 2016, 41 states, along with the District of Columbia, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Defendants for monopolistic practices in the opioid-addiction treatment market, specifically focusing on the drug Suboxone.
The states were Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho
Our firm is only taking new Suboxone teeth lawsuits in 2024 in states with a three-year statute of limitations. In our December 22, 2023 update, we listed the two-year statute of limitations states. We are also no longer taking new cases in Louisiana, Tennessee, or Kentucky.
If you have suffered dental problems like tooth decay, erosion, or loss after using Suboxone film, you may be eligible to join the growing number of individuals pursuing compensation in this litigation, often referred to as a Suboxone class action lawsuit. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss your potential claim and learn how we can help you seek justice.
