Fifty people who took Mediator before 2009 are asking the Servier laboratory for compensation for the damage caused by anxiety.
They are not sick but they fear becoming sick, which generates in them a feeling of anguish. Fifty people who have taken Mediator and are worried about the consequences of their old treatment are seeking redress in court for their prejudice of anxiety.
This group of plaintiffs are represented by three lawyers, who are each claiming 15,000 euros in provisions for accelerated proceedings before the summary judge of the Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) of Nanterre. They will be fixed on their fate on January 28.
“Sword of Damocles”
Used by five million people, this anti-diabetic, widely used as an appetite suppressant for more than 30 years and withdrawn from the French market in November 2009, is the cause of serious lesions of the heart valves (valve disease) and arterial hypertension. pulmonary disease (PAH), a rare and currently incurable disease.
These people say they have lived since 2009 with “a sword of Damocles on their heads” – an “anguish” induced by exposure to risk but also by the media coverage of the health scandal which “permanent, reactivated by the medical checks to which they must submit. “, Explained to AFP Me Charles Joseph-Oudin, one of their lawyers.
However, the medical literature suggests that the risk of heart valve disease disappears two years after stopping treatment. But “uncertainty” remains about pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), according to lawyers for the plaintiffs. “There is no scientific data available to say how long after stopping treatment we are saved”, notes Me Joseph-Oudin.
“No proof” according to Servier
At the hearing, the Servier laboratory vigorously contested the merits of the action of the 50 applicants, arguing an “infinitesimal” risk after two years. The company thus highlighted the fact that among the patients engaged in a compensation process, only one was diagnosed with PAH four years after stopping his Mediator treatment.
In addition, the laboratory questioned the reality of the damage, for lack of “evidence”: “almost all of the applicants did not receive psychological follow-up, only five consulted (…). A simple fear or worry is not enough to characterize a compensable anguish, ”argued Me Jacques-Antoine Robert, before requesting an expertise in the alternative.
The “prejudice of anxiety” was sanctioned in 2010 by the Court of Cassation and has since given rise to numerous indemnifications, in particular in the asbestos scandal.
.
