If you’ve been treated with Dupixent for eczema or another inflammatory condition and later diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), you may be wondering whether you have grounds for a lawsuit.
Determining eligibility isn’t always straightforward. CTCL often resembles severe eczema in its early stages, and because Dupixent reduces inflammation, it can soften or temporarily improve symptoms that would otherwise raise red flags. This overlap can delay biopsy, change how the disease appears over time, and make it harder for patients and doctors to recognize when something more serious is developing.
That’s why attorneys evaluating Dupixent cases look beyond symptoms alone. They focus on specific medical criteria, biopsy results, treatment records, and the timeline of how your skin changed before and after starting the medication. In this guide, we break down the factors that matter most and explain the documentation that helps determine whether a case may qualify for a Dupixent lymphoma lawsuit.
Primary Medical Criteria for a Dupixent Lymphoma Claim
Not every person who used Dupixent and later developed skin changes or cancer will qualify for a Dupixent lymphoma claim. Most cases focus on these criteria.
1. Confirmed diagnosis of a T-cell lymphoma
The first major criterion is a diagnosis of a T-cell lymphoma. Individuals may qualify if they have been diagnosed with:
- Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL)
- Mycosis Fungoides
- Sézary Syndrome
- Another T-cell lymphoma involving the skin, confirmed through pathology
- A T-cell lymphoma that was initially treated as eczema or dermatitis
In practice, these diagnoses are usually confirmed with a skin biopsy or other tissue sampling. Biopsy results are crucial because CTCL and related cancers can look almost identical to eczema in their early stages. Without a biopsy, it is very difficult to distinguish between long-standing dermatitis and an emerging lymphoma.
2. Dupixent treatment prior to or during symptom progression
The second key criterion is documented Dupixent use before the lymphoma was discovered. Current Dupixent lymphoma lawsuits and investigations focus on patients who:
- Used Dupixent (dupilumab) as prescribed for:
- Moderate to severe eczema (atopic dermatitis)
- Asthma
- Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps
- Eosinophilic esophagitis
- Received injections at home or in a clinic over a period of time
Many of the published studies and case reports involve ongoing Dupixent treatment over several months or longer, which is why attorneys often pay close attention to the length of therapy when evaluating risk patterns.
However, a person does not have to be on Dupixent for years or even still be taking it at the time of diagnosis to be considered. CTCL can progress slowly, so a diagnosis made during treatment or after stopping the drug may still fit what researchers and regulators are now seeing.
3. Symptom progression after Dupixent use
When reviewing potential claims, attorneys also look at how symptoms changed once Dupixent entered the picture, such as:
- Rashes that worsened, spread, or changed character after starting Dupixent
- Plaques that became thicker, darker, or more persistent
- Skin that stopped responding to therapies that previously helped
- Situations where Dupixent may have masked or delayed recognition of CTCL by improving some inflammation while the underlying cancer continued to evolve
When these patterns appear alongside a documented T-cell lymphoma diagnosis and a history of Dupixent use, they can strengthen the argument that a case fits within the emerging concerns at the center of Dupixent lymphoma litigation.
Evidence That Helps Determine Whether a Case Qualifies for a Dupixent Lymphoma Claim
Once an individual has both a history of Dupixent use and a confirmed diagnosis of a T-cell lymphoma, the next step is reviewing the documentation that connects the two.
Medical documentation
Medical records give attorneys the clearest picture of how symptoms developed and how the diagnosis was made. These details help attorneys understand whether the clinical pattern matches what is being reported in published Dupixent-related CTCL cases.
Helpful documentation includes:
- Dermatology records, especially notes that describe how rashes changed, spread, or failed to respond to treatment
- Dupixent prescription history, including start dates, dosing intervals, and how long the biologic was used
- Pharmacy logs confirming refills and ongoing injections
- PET or CT scans used for staging or evaluating lymph node involvement
- Ultrasound or MRI findings if deeper tissue structures were evaluated
- Dermatology assessments that document plaques, patches, or progression over time
- Biopsy or pathology reports that confirm CTCL, Mycosis Fungoides, Sézary Syndrome, or another T-cell lymphoma
- Oncology and hematology evaluations, which detail staging, lymph node involvement, and lab findings
- Records showing misdiagnosis, such as years of eczema treatment before a biopsy was finally performed
Personal symptom documentation
Personal records can help fill in the gaps between formal medical visits, especially in cases where symptoms evolved slowly or dermatology appointments were spaced far apart.
Helpful examples include:
- Photos of rashes, plaques, or worsening lesions over time
- Symptom journals noting itching, spread, or changes in skin behavior
- Emails or messages to doctors describing worsening symptoms
- Records of missed work or daily-life impacts due to skin pain, fatigue, or treatment side effects
- Notes on when Dupixent started or stopped and how symptoms changed afterward
While personal documentation cannot replace medical evidence, it helps create a fuller picture of how the condition developed and often highlights the exact moment when “eczema” stopped behaving like eczema, prompting eventual biopsy.
Factors That May Limit Eligibility for A Dupixent Lymphoma Claim
Not everyone who used the drug and later developed persistent skin issues will qualify for a Dupixent lymphoma claim. Certain circumstances can make it harder to link the condition to the medication or establish the type of diagnosis required for litigation.
These factors don’t automatically rule out a case, but they can influence how strong the evidence appears during a legal evaluation:
- No biopsy-confirmed CTCL or T-cell lymphoma: CTCL and related cancers look similar to eczema, but without a biopsy, it’s not possible to determine whether the condition is cancerous.
- Skin symptoms that align with eczema, but no evidence of lymphoma: Many people have severe or stubborn eczema that never evolves into CTCL. Conditions such as psoriasis, allergic dermatitis, infections, or unrelated immune disorders can fully account for the skin changes.
- Minimal Dupixent exposure: Very short-term use may not fit the clinical patterns seen in reported cases and published research.
- Gaps in medical records or follow-up: Long periods without dermatology visits, incomplete documentation, or missing biopsy results can make it difficult to reconstruct the diagnostic timeline.
If your symptoms or diagnosis align with the criteria discussed above, a free legal review can help you understand your options and what a Dupixent lymphoma claim might involve. Our team at Slater & Zurz is available to guide you through each step, answer your questions, and help determine whether a Dupixent lymphoma lawsuit may be appropriate in your situation.
Give us a call at 330-762-0700 today or learn more here.
Written by Rick Zurz
Rick, the managing partner of Slater & Zurz, is recognized as one of Ohio’s leading civil plaintiff attorneys. Specializing in personal injury law, Rick is deeply committed to his clients and takes pride in actively participating in every case the firm handles.
