Lawsuit Alleges Risperdal, Zyprexa Caused Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Drug manufacturers knew or should have known that side effects of Risperdal and Zyprexa may increase breast cancer risks, according to the complaint.

A California woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturers of Risperdal and Zyprexa, alleging that the popular antipsychotic medications caused her breast cancer diagnosis, raising serious concerns about a failure to adequately disclose potential side effects that users may face.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Bridget Brown in California Superior Court in Alameda County in April, alleging that the manufacturers, and the pharmacy which filled her prescriptions, failed to warn her that Risperdal and Zyprexa increased the risk of breast cancer, and failed to ensure the drugs were safe enough for patients to use.

The lawsuit names as defendants Johnson & Johnson and its Janssen subsidiaries, the manufacturers of Zyprexa; Eli Lilly and Company, the manufacturer of Risperdal; and Kaiser Permanente, which ran the pharmacy where Brown acquired her medications

After the drug makers removed the case to the federal court system, Brown filed a motion last month arguing that the case should be returned to California state court since the inclusion of claims against the local medical provider destroys federal jurisdiction over the claim.

Lawsuits Over Risperdal and Zyprexa Side Effects

Risperdal (risperidone) is an atypical antipsychotic drug used primarily for the treatment of schizophrenia. While Risperdal was originally only approved for use among adults with schizophrenia, the antipsychotic was widely prescribed off-label, including for use among children with bipolar disorder, autism, irritability, aggression and behavior disorders.

Zyprexa (olanzapine) is used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, decreasing hallucinations and mania.

However, both Risperdal and Zyprexa have been named in numerous lawsuits over serious side effects allegedly linked to their use. Risperdal has faced claims involving off-label prescriptions, particularly in children, where it was tied to complications like gynecomastia (male breast growth) and other hormonal issues. Zyprexa has been the subject of litigation over risks such as diabetes, weight gain and other metabolic disorders. In both cases, plaintiffs argue the manufacturers failed to adequately warn about the drugs’ potential dangers.

Breast Cancer Risks from Risperdal and Zyprexa

Brown’s lawsuit alleges that side effects of Risperdal and Zyprexa resulted in her breast cancer diagnosis in 2024, due to abnormally high levels of prolactin in her blood, a condition known as hyperprolactinemia.

“It has been well known within the scientific community since at least the 1970s that hyperprolactinemia can cause breast cancer. And, since at least the 1990s, there has been common scientific consensus that atypical antipsychotics, such as Defendants’ Drugs, can cause hyperprolactinemia.”

–Bridgett Brown v. Johnson & Johnson et al.

However, the lawsuit claims the drugs lacked any warning about breast cancer risks, and that if Brown or her doctor had been aware of the danger, she would have avoided the medications and her physician would have recommended an alternative treatment.

Brown presents claims of failure to warn, general negligence, and negligence failure to warn against all of the defendants, as well as a claim of fraud aimed only at the drug manufacturers.

Parties Fight Over Change of Venues

On May 20, the drug manufacturer defendants filed a notice of removal (PDF), calling for the case to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, saying there was complete diversity between Brown and the manufacturers, who are not based in California. The case was then assigned to U.S. District Judge Peter H. Kang.

Plaintiffs responded with a motion to remand (PDF) on June 11, seeking to have the lawsuit returned to state court where it was originally filed, based on the inclusion of Kaiser Permanente, which is based in California.

“California law has long recognized that the seller of a good should take reasonable precautions to ensure the products they sell do not pose an unreasonable risk to the consumer. This is especially true in the case of managed care consortiums – like Kaiser – which insure, treat, and prescribe patients, and also research and regulate the drugs that are distributed and sold through their pharmacies.”

–Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand

The motion accused the manufacturers of using tactics meant to delay the litigation, as it often takes cases longer to be resolved in federal court. The motion states this was done in hopes of Brown giving up and dropping her lawsuit, or even that the manufacturers are gambling on her dying from breast cancer before her case can go to trial or they are forced to settle.

However, in a response (PDF) filed on June 25, defendants claimed the inclusion of the pharmacy was a fraudulent joinder, indicating there was no chance of a civil claim succeeding against it, and Kaiser Permanente’s inclusion was solely for the purpose of keeping the lawsuit in state court.

An initial case management conference is scheduled for August 21.

Sign up to receive more legal news that may impact you or your family.