Interesting developments in the UK on the legal front.
First off, families in the UK have been denied legal aid in their battle to take on pharmaceutical giants Sanofi Aventis
BBC News reports that;
"Women who took sodium valproate in the 1990s claim they were not given adequate warnings of possible harm.
About 80 families have begun action for damages against the firm, claiming the drug - also known as epilim - caused severe disabilities in children including spina bifida, heart damage and learning difficulties.
The Legal Services Commission, which runs legal aid, has concluded the case is not sufficiently likely to succeed."
Personally, I believe, to successfully sue a pharmaceutical company here in the UK would take a law firm with testicles the size of bowling balls. It's evident, to me at least, that when legal aid reaches a peak of £3million, the law firm running these types of cases make a decision based on their own business and not on the merits of the case.
Pharmaceutical companies know this so they rarely make out of court settlements.
I know of a further two lawsuits in the UK who have recently had the rug pulled from underneath them. A press blanket prevents me from mentioning the two cases - both are against one pharmaceutical company [different products] - Both cases, I believe, are currently in the process of appealing to the Legal Services Commission whose decision it was to withdraw funding.
The benzo litigation a few years back also had its funding removed at a late stage.
It wouldn't happen in America.
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
No comments: