Zyprexa & Risperdal 2: This Time It’s Breast Cancer

May 8, 2025

We’ve all seen this movie before: big pharma, legacy antipsychotics, and a paper trail stretching back decades that plays like the script of a corporate ethics thriller—just with worse dialogue and more redactions. But a new lawsuit recently filed in California state court may have just added a new twist to a familiar franchise. And plaintiff lawyers who know their way around mass torts—especially those who still have dusty old Risperdal or Zyprexa intakes sitting in their CRMs—might want to pay attention.

At first glance, it looks like a retread. The complaint names Johnson & Johnson (Risperdal) and Eli Lilly (Zyprexa) and alleges injury from long-term use. So far, so mid-2000s. But the punchline here is different—and so is the potential upside (for plaintiff lawyers). Plaintiff Bridgett Brown, represented by Wisner Baum, isn’t claiming gynecomastia, diabetes, or endocrine disruption. She’s claiming breast cancer. Specifically, the complaint alleges that prolonged use of prolactin-elevating antipsychotics like Risperdal and Zyprexa promoted tumor growth—and that the manufacturers have known, since at least the 1990s, about the breast cancer risk but failed to disclose it to doctors or patients.

If you’re skeptical, good. You should be. The defense will no doubt be licking their chops to scream “confounding variables” and lean on the observational nature of the studies. But the complaint is smart. It’s backed by a growing body of peer-reviewed literature tying prolactin levels to increased breast cancer incidence in women—and it focuses on a subset of users who were often prescribed these drugs off-label for non-psychotic conditions. In other words, this isn’t about schizophrenia patients from state hospitals in the ‘90s. It’s about everyday women—millions of them—who were prescribed Risperdal or Zyprexa for mood regulation, insomnia, dementia, or adolescent behavioral issues. Many took these meds for years. Some were never told what prolactin is, let alone that theirs was being pushed into the stratosphere.

The science here isn’t just decorative. One 2023 study of more than 540,000 women found that “high-prolactin” antipsychotics were associated with a 62% increased risk of breast cancer. A 2025 meta-analysis pulled from 15 studies and over a million patients, pegging the number at 59%. A 2024 Swedish registry study found statistically significant increases even after one year of exposure. And a preclinical mouse study mapped the biological mechanism: the JAK-STAT5 signaling pathway gets activated by prolactin and accelerates tumor progression. Do these studies establish causation? Of course not. That’s not their job. But they set up a chain of biological plausibility that’s going to look compelling in the right venue, especially with a sympathetic plaintiff and a defendant who’s been less than forthcoming for decades. When the defense posture is “maybe we gave you cancer but also maybe not,” you can guess which way the sympathy winds will blow.

So far, Brown is a solo act. But it won’t stay that way for long. Mass torts don’t emerge from the earth fully formed—they gather inertia. One case becomes ten. Ten becomes a motion to centralize. And before you know it, you’re briefing the JPML on whether it should land in the Northern District of California or New Jersey, and whose name goes on the leadership committee. Based on volume alone, this one could go the distance. Zyprexa and Risperdal have been prescribed to millions. Eli Lilly resolved 26,000 Zyprexa claims back in the 2000s. Johnson & Johnson has faced more than 14,000 Risperdal suits. The infrastructure is there. So is the intake history. The only thing missing was a new theory with trial potential—and this case may have found it.

Is this a Roundup-sized MDL? Probably not. But it doesn’t have to be. Breast cancer as a harm comes with built-in credibility and emotional impact. It also opens the door to more serious damages than most antipsychotic side effect cases. Past Risperdal settlements and verdicts tended to hover in the low-to-mid five figures. But a postmenopausal woman with invasive ductal carcinoma? That’s a seven-figure jury just waiting to happen, particularly if you can show years of exposure, an off-label use, and a label that denied the risk outright.

Will there be a JPML petition? It’s too early to tell. But if a few more firms come off the sidelines, it’s just a matter of when. This case has all the makings of a centralization: overlapping factual issues, identical defendants, identical products, and a plaintiff population spread across the country. Smart firms will start gathering cases now, not later. That means revisiting old intake forms, screening for breast cancer diagnoses, and leaning into cases where the drugs were prescribed off-label or long-term. Breast cancer already affects 1 in 8 women. If even a small fraction of those cases can be linked to long-term antipsychotic use, the potential volume is significant.

If you’ve been waiting for the next smart, scalable mass tort play—this might be it. The science is there, the exposure is massive, and the story sells itself. We’re already building the infrastructure: screening protocols, intake criteria, and early case analysis tied directly to the allegations in Brown. Whether you’ve got old Risperdal or Zyprexa intakes to revisit or want to get ahead of the curve with new breast cancer screenings, we can help you move fast and smart. Call us now—before the best cases are gone.

The Legal Calls Advantage - how we're different

• We know what really matters to you is the cost per compensable case.
• Our fraud detection department is second to none.
• Need medical records? Just ask.
• Non-incentivized intake agents! Most case originators pay a bonus to their agents on signing, which leads to signing unqualified claimants.
• We conduct in-depth interviews by asking open-ended non-leading questions, like an attorney would do.

Click here to book a call

Craig H. Alinder, Vice President

Office: 802-664-4201 | Email: craig@legalcalls.com

LegalCalls.com | Calendly | Download our most recent price sheet

Legal Calls, 2108 N Street, Suite 4809, Sacramento, CA 95816, (877) 853-5801

‍