Any successful lawsuits for damage suffered by benzodiazepine use?

It's a bit of a side note, and maybe it doesn't belong in this thread. I guess most people here are from the USA.

 

Have people been able to succesfully sue their doctors for damage suffered by a benzodiazepine, or lack of follow up care ? Civil, or criminal law ?

I'm sure there must have been a few individuals ...  would think that for civil law, medical error, harm and causality would have to be proven. For criminal law ... I guess a doctor must stab you with a knife before that's an issue. Or am I wrong ? How do you prove 'damage' and causality ?

'physical dependency caused by iatrogenis, itself causing iatrogenic harm'.

Ray Nimmo is a fairly well known case in the UK.  Here's the 2002 article from The Guardian.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/jun/23/health.NHS

 

 

Doesn't the medical association cover up for them? Sueing doctors is quite hard, if not impossible.

There was a benzodiazepine litigation case in the UK which ran from 1986 to 1994 against John Wyeth, Roche and Upjohn but the action collapsed after legal aid was withdrawn, the manufacturers used delaying tactics and the legal aid bill was spiralling. I believe the UK government has made sure that a similar case is unlikely to ever be considered again.

 

www.theguardian.com/society/2000/nov/22/health.socialcare2

 

I have a list of mostly UK lawsuits though there is one American example in there: www.benzo.org.uk/legal/index.htm

 

Some individuals are successful but you probably need deep pockets.... or legal aid! 

Liberty:

 

This is the closest I came to.

 

 

Class Action Lawsuit Against Manufacturers of Celexa, Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Lexapro, Paxil, Seroquel, diazepam, Xanax and Ativan

 

 

 

Scores of lawsuits have been launched against the pharmaceutical giants and numerous medical studies have proven that the antidepressant, antipsychotic and benzodiazepine drugs which they are producing are causing significant harm to the patients who have been prescribed them.

 

If you have suffered from any of the following side effects of SSRI antidepressants, such as Celexa, Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Lexapro and Paxil, antipsychotic medications, such as risperidone, quetiapine (Seroquel) and ziprasidone or benzodiazepines, such as alprazolam, bromazepam, lorazepam (Ativan) and diazepam, please sign up for a class action lawsuit that will be launched against the manufacturers of these deadly drugs:

 

Memory impairment

Depression

Mental impairment

Memory loss

Sexual dysfunction

Lethargy

Disorientation

Confusion

Apathy

Aggression

Depersonalization (feeling that you are separated from yourself)

Derealization (feeling that you are separated from the rest of the world)

Visual and/or auditory hallucinations

Agitation

Mania/Hypomania

Violence

Self-destructive behaviour

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Impulse Control Disorder

Mood swings

Anxiety

Irritability

Insomnia

Nightmares

Weight gain/puffiness

Bizarre or criminal acts

Social phobia

Reckless spending

Addictions

Compulsive lying

No concern for consequences of actions

Impaired judgement

Suicidal thoughts

Tardive dyskinesia

 

We need to make the drug companies pay for the lives they have destroyed. We also need to raise awareness of the dangers associated with taking antidepressants, antipsychotics and benzodiazepines; drugs which are prescribed to millions of people. How many more lives will be ruined and lost if we don't act? The more names I'm able to collect on this petition, the greater the chance of success we will have when launching a class action lawsuit. This is my driving ambition in life. I know of a number of wonderful people who are no longer alive because of these drugs. If you are suffering, my heart goes out to you. Please help me to put a stop to this crime against humanity. Thank you!

Liberty:

 

This is the closest I came to.

 

 

Class Action Lawsuit Against Manufacturers of Celexa, Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Lexapro, Paxil, Seroquel, diazepam, Xanax and Ativan

 

 

 

Scores of lawsuits have been launched against the pharmaceutical giants and numerous medical studies have proven that the antidepressant, antipsychotic and benzodiazepine drugs which they are producing are causing significant harm to the patients who have been prescribed them.

 

If you have suffered from any of the following side effects of SSRI antidepressants, such as Celexa, Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Lexapro and Paxil, antipsychotic medications, such as risperidone, quetiapine (Seroquel) and ziprasidone or benzodiazepines, such as alprazolam, bromazepam, lorazepam (Ativan) and diazepam, please sign up for a class action lawsuit that will be launched against the manufacturers of these deadly drugs:

 

Memory impairment

Depression

Mental impairment

Memory loss

Sexual dysfunction

Lethargy

Disorientation

Confusion

Apathy

Aggression

Depersonalization (feeling that you are separated from yourself)

Derealization (feeling that you are separated from the rest of the world)

Visual and/or auditory hallucinations

Agitation

Mania/Hypomania

Violence

Self-destructive behaviour

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Impulse Control Disorder

Mood swings

Anxiety

Irritability

Insomnia

Nightmares

Weight gain/puffiness

Bizarre or criminal acts

Social phobia

Reckless spending

Addictions

Compulsive lying

No concern for consequences of actions

Impaired judgement

Suicidal thoughts

Tardive dyskinesia

 

We need to make the drug companies pay for the lives they have destroyed. We also need to raise awareness of the dangers associated with taking antidepressants, antipsychotics and benzodiazepines; drugs which are prescribed to millions of people. How many more lives will be ruined and lost if we don't act? The more names I'm able to collect on this petition, the greater the chance of success we will have when launching a class action lawsuit. This is my driving ambition in life. I know of a number of wonderful people who are no longer alive because of these drugs. If you are suffering, my heart goes out to you. Please help me to put a stop to this crime against humanity. Thank you!

 

 

Thank you for posting this benzogirl, it leaves me feeling encouraged not least because nothing remotely like it appears to be happening in the UK and I'm very doubtful it could happen here. I hope this action has a strong chance of winning. I get quite emotional just thinking about it. Paxil or Seroxat as it is known over here and Effexor are antidepressants I've taken in my time, likewise diazepam, they've done a fair bit of damage to me over the years. I see a number of the side-effects I suffered from on your list. Mostly I feel angry and frustrated that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't usually pay much of a penalty for ruining peoples' lives and they've taken an awful lot away from me. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the best possible outcome, we need to stop more people from being harmed by these drugs. Lots of luck with that burning ambition, you can maybe tell I appreciate your efforts very much. Your right, it is a crime against humanity and it's about high time we got justice.             

Pris:

 

I think if we win one of those lawsuits, then lawyers will be climbing the walls to take on others. That's how they make most of their money: class action lawsuits. But remember those pharma companies have loads of lawyers on hand to try and get out of it. And it's difficult to prove if someone has taken multiple medications. But it's a start!

The big push to re-label physical addiction as mere dependence will only serve to make legal remedies more unlikely.  Juries are more likely to conclude that the plaintiff required the medication to treat a diagnosed condition, therefore they depended on it, hence dependence, hence no damage and no malpractice.  Defense attorneys and their paid expert witnesses will lace nearly every sentence with the words dependence and diagnosis.  Over and over again.  The monies available to fund these legal defenses is unlimited.  Good luck.

There you go. Third and fourth reasons.

The big push to re-label physical addiction as mere dependence will only serve to make legal remedies more unlikely.  Juries are more likely to conclude that the plaintiff required the medication to treat a diagnosed condition, therefore they depended on it, hence dependence, hence no damage and no malpractice.  Defense attorneys and their paid expert witnesses will lace nearly every sentence with the words dependence and diagnosis.  Over and over again.  The monies available to fund these legal defenses is unlimited.  Good luck.

 

dependence and diagnoses are fine, it's the fact that benzos cause brain damage that is the problem. If you get dependent on a medication that is not supposed to be such a big deal, you should be able to taper off slowly and be fine. But lots of people arent fine after tapering off benzos. they have brain damage years later. thats a problem.

The big push to re-label physical addiction as mere dependence will only serve to make legal remedies more unlikely.  Juries are more likely to conclude that the plaintiff required the medication to treat a diagnosed condition, therefore they depended on it, hence dependence, hence no damage and no malpractice.  Defense attorneys and their paid expert witnesses will lace nearly every sentence with the words dependence and diagnosis.  Over and over again.  The monies available to fund these legal defenses is unlimited.  Good luck.

 

I understand your misgivings over the term dependence but please allow me to have some misgivings over the use of the word "addiction". I would be leery of using this word because of it's associations with misuse or abuse and that's not something that is part of my experience with either antidepressants or benzodiazepines. Out of interest I looked up the word addiction and included in the definition was this line: "he committed the offence to finance his drug addiction". That is how most people perceive addiction. Benzos have long associations with drug addiction and abuse whereas very few in the medical profession will even concede that antidepressants cause dependence in the first place. I don't see how painting us as addicts especially re benzos would help to serve our cause in any way. They would probably have us down as addictive personalities who somehow deserved much of what we got. I agree we need stronger terms but addiction shouldn't be one of them. 

The big push to re-label physical addiction as mere dependence will only serve to make legal remedies more unlikely.  Juries are more likely to conclude that the plaintiff required the medication to treat a diagnosed condition, therefore they depended on it, hence dependence, hence no damage and no malpractice.  Defense attorneys and their paid expert witnesses will lace nearly every sentence with the words dependence and diagnosis.  Over and over again.  The monies available to fund these legal defenses is unlimited.  Good luck.

 

 

I understand your misgivings over the term dependence but please allow me to have some misgivings over the use of the word "addiction". I would be leery of using this word because of it's associations with misuse or abuse and that's not something that is part of my experience with either antidepressants or benzodiazepines. Out of interest I looked up the word addiction and included in the definition was this line: "he committed the offence to finance his drug addiction". That is how most people perceive addiction. Benzos have long associations with drug addiction and abuse whereas very few in the medical profession will even concede that antidepressants cause dependence in the first place. I don't see how painting us as addicts especially re benzos would help to serve our cause in any way. They would probably have us down as addictive personalities who somehow deserved much of what we got. I agree we need stronger terms but addiction shouldn't be one of them.

 

The qualms about using the accurate term physical addiction verses the safe-space term dependence have been discussed in other threads.  I bring it up again in this lawsuit discussion thread because of the potential implications in a courtroom.  The words juries hear are critical to their decisions.  To repeat, my point is that the defense will hammer juries with the position that the plaintiff was properly diagnosed with a condition, that the medication was properly prescribed and that the plaintiff was dependent on the medication to treat that condition, therefore there was no harm.  Further, they will argue that the current symptoms the plaintiff claims he has are either symptoms of his original diagnosis or a result of his failure to dose the medication properly.  You're correct in saying that a stronger term than dependence needs to be used but until our thought leaders and wordsmiths give us one, the correct stronger (and more accurate) term to use is physical addiction.  Especially in a courtroom.

 

By the way, the use of the term "physical addiction" implies that there is no presence of an addictive personality.  Put the word "physical" in there so that people understand you're not out there compulsively buying bars of Xanax in an alley and gulping them down behind a dumpster, if that's your concern.

I don't believe benzo cases will even make it to the courtroom, so the semantics on this are moot.

 

These drugs all include warnings that benzos should not be used long term, and until there are laws in every state banning the prescribing of these drugs beyond two weeks, people are going to continue to get hooked, and their doctors will not be held responsible.

 

It is up to all of us to research what we put into our mouths, and I include myself - I've learned the hard way that it is not enough to take the word of a doctor, or even a pharmacist.

The big push to re-label physical addiction as mere dependence will only serve to make legal remedies more unlikely.  Juries are more likely to conclude that the plaintiff required the medication to treat a diagnosed condition, therefore they depended on it, hence dependence, hence no damage and no malpractice.  Defense attorneys and their paid expert witnesses will lace nearly every sentence with the words dependence and diagnosis.  Over and over again.  The monies available to fund these legal defenses is unlimited.  Good luck.

 

If it is addiction then the blame will fall on the victim. He shouldn't have abused the drug. Associated with cravings and the need to 'push through it'.

 

'physical addiction.' Associated with physical dependence, and the need to go through withdrawal to get past the addiction, past the way the addict abused the drug. You don't want to use the word addict in a court case except when you're a doctor.

The big push to re-label physical addiction as mere dependence will only serve to make legal remedies more unlikely.  Juries are more likely to conclude that the plaintiff required the medication to treat a diagnosed condition, therefore they depended on it, hence dependence, hence no damage and no malpractice.  Defense attorneys and their paid expert witnesses will lace nearly every sentence with the words dependence and diagnosis.  Over and over again.  The monies available to fund these legal defenses is unlimited.  Good luck.

 

If it is addiction then the blame will fall on the victim. He shouldn't have abused the drug. Associated with cravings and the need to 'push through it'.

 

'physical addiction.' Associated with physical dependence, and the need to go through withdrawal to get past the addiction, past the way the addict abused the drug. You don't want to use the word addict in a court case except when you're a doctor.

The opposite is the case.  You want the jury to know that as a result of the doctor's incompetence, your client became physically addicted and suffered great harm from which he is still suffering and may well suffer for the rest of his life, not to mention loss of income for which he should be compensated.  Absolutely forbid the prosecuting attorneys from using the word dependence, which not only has the effect of downgrading the seriousness of the damage but worse yet suggests that there was a good reason for the plaintiff to take the pills.  The jury will hear this misleading word enough from the defense attorneys, who want to portray the client as someone who was properly diagnosed and was justifiably "dependent" on that drug to treat the diagnosis.  In other words, this fine doctor did everything right.

 

<<"You don't want to use the word addict in a court case...">>

 

Of course not.  You use the term "physically addicted."  What you can say though is that "this fine father and husband trusted that doctor, simply did what he was told, and as a result he became physically addicted to this dangerous drug and endured years of suffering and loss of income."  That's HARM.  You want the jury to know that there was HARM.  Addiction and harm go hand-in-hand.  Dependence and harm do not.  One more try.  Tell a person you are physically addicted to a drug.  The emotional needle jumps very close to, or into, the red zone.  Tell a person you are dependent on a drug.  The emotional needle doesn't move very much.  (So what?)  In a courtroom you want to move the jury's emotional needle.

 

Do your last word on this.  Gotta move on to other things now.  All academic anyway, this courtroom scene is never going to take place.

How about BECAME Dependent... (from taking the medicine as told)

-Instead of was/is Dependent... (on the medication, to treat a condition)

 

Now the problem words are -became, was and Is....

 

We need to use the correct word, and promote/define its correct meaning...

 

Not use the word Joe Blo might "get" or have a vague understanding of, or an emotional connection to, -and just hope for the best...

 

In an evolving world, correct wording only need be defined...

Educate and enhance, not Cater and confuse...

 

 

 

The big push to re-label physical addiction as mere dependence will only serve to make legal remedies more unlikely.  Juries are more likely to conclude that the plaintiff required the medication to treat a diagnosed condition, therefore they depended on it, hence dependence, hence no damage and no malpractice.  Defense attorneys and their paid expert witnesses will lace nearly every sentence with the words dependence and diagnosis.  Over and over again.  The monies available to fund these legal defenses is unlimited.  Good luck.

 

If it is addiction then the blame will fall on the victim. He shouldn't have abused the drug. Associated with cravings and the need to 'push through it'.

 

'physical addiction.' Associated with physical dependence, and the need to go through withdrawal to get past the addiction, past the way the addict abused the drug. You don't want to use the word addict in a court case except when you're a doctor.

 

You're absolutely right, liberty.

What boggles my mind is that benzodiazepines are in an essence, anti-epileptic medications. I do understand that they are FDA approved for anxiety and many other conditions, and that doctors can prescribe them off label for something else, legally.

 

But still one point to drive across is that people are being prescribed strong, anti-seizure pills for mental health conditions. It just makes no sense.

 

What boggles my mind is that benzodiazepines are in an essence, anti-epileptic medications. I do understand that they are FDA approved for anxiety and many other conditions, and that doctors can prescribe them off label for something else, legally.

 

But still one point to drive across is that people are being prescribed strong, anti-seizure pills for mental health conditions. It just makes no sense.

A good point.. I wonder what a Drs response would be to the accusation of such a poor choice of medication for what "may" have been a correct diagnoses..

Surely it couldnt be "Its worked fine for the last 50 years"...??

 

My reason for being on Valium, while wrong, was more physical as a muscle relaxant... and kinda "evolved"...

Are there conditions or situations where there is no better solution than to prescribe a benzo?

Or is it irresponsible, uneducated and incorrect prescribing every time in recent years...??

 

-so many questions... I will try to catch up...

 

 

 

 

Goodafternoon,

I am from the Netherlands, I am still suffering after 26 months out, today I just wonder; is there any benzobuddie in the Netherlands or anywhere in the world who started a law suit and had succes?

Please if anyone has any information, let me know,

Thanks

Mymie

Once a drug has gone generic, and all benzos have been generic for many years, no one can bring a lawsuit against the inventor.  I had a very credible reference for this, but I cannot find it now.

 

When I applied for disability, I was at first a bit annoyed with my attorney because she mentioned my benzo use at all.  A legal expert had told me it was not necessary.  It did not matter how I became disabled, only that I was.  But the lawyer who filed the brief on my case put it on page 1, and told me that in the US at least, it is EXPECTED that eventually at least a few people will become disabled from any given FDA approved medication, and disability is granted for that all the time.

 

I know we are in pain, and we want someone to pay for our pain, but at least in the US, it is just not going to happen.

 

I cannot speak for the laws of other countries, but I doubt there is a chance of success there either.

 

Sorry.

 

Ramcon1