Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Has anyone ever sued a GP for side effects of a medication?

280 replies

jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 15:44

Hello lovely group - Very quickly...

I had painful periods. I was refused a stronger painkiller to help with them. I'm now 50. This all kicked off approx. 3 years ago. Before then NO HISTORY of painful periods (even tho they've been getting more and more painful since a c-section in 1995), no history of pain meds, no history of ANY type of illness... Normal weight, 8 stone.

GP gives me Cerelle... within a month I am very very poorly... within 3 months I've had an emergency admission into a hospital in USA and had 3 procedures: gallbladder removal (no stones, no sludge, only mega irritation, cholecystitis), sphinctertomoy (because the sphincter had closed shut and blown my common bile duct out to several size that it should be, right up into my liver actually!!, and some stenting of that duct to help keep it open. The cost was $76,000. Health insurance paid it.

I have zero doubt that the WHOLE ISSUE, was caused by Cerelle. 'Gallbladder' disease is listed as a side effect. It also did NOTHING to stop my period pain, in fact, it gave me cramps and bleeding every single day.

I feel pretty mad to have gone through all of that. I was so scared. 6 days in hospital feeling very very poorly. Some outpatient appointments, a private MRCP scan in Harley St when I got back for £3,000 of my own money because I was still in pain and was worried that the hospital in USA (small border town) had screwed up. Well they had. I HAD acute pancreatitis from the gallbladder/sphincter issue....and no-one there told me. That lead to me having pancreatitis for 12 months and not realising it. My UK GP - the same practice - dismissed the Harley St conclusion that I had acute pancreatitis and tried to not give me any pain relief, saying it wasn't possible that I had it because my GB had now come out.

The Cerelle had a 'side effects' sheet in the box. One never thinks that one will GET the side effects. And I actually believed....that the 'pill' would stop my periods and give me some much needed relief.

On to today, I have adenomyosis and possibly endometriosis.. This has nothing to do with why I'm interested in whether I can DO anything about having suffered those side effects as a result of taking Cerelle tho..

I mean, can we bring a case for side effects from a med that the GP probably thought would.........help the situation??!!? It was a direct bunch of CRAP I got from that medication..

thanks group,

Jem x

OP posts:
sproutsandparsnips · 22/05/2018 16:18

Also gallbladder disease from any cause, not just side effects, could result in these horrible complications so I don't think you can apportion blame to the pill per se iyswim.

Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:19

Yes, I guess - if - and it's a big if - there was a case, it would be against the manufacturer of the drug for the side effect leaflet not being explicit enough. 3 organs and a bile duct, damaged does not = 'gallbladder disease'..

thanks

Jem :)

OP posts:
Sirzy · 22/05/2018 16:19

So you really expect a long detailed explanation of every possible side effect AND complications of that side effect?

Imagine how big the patient information leaflets would have to be!

Graphista · 22/05/2018 16:19

You were unlucky but

There's no way of knowing it was the pill caused all that. My fathers had the same issues I guarantee it wasn't anything gynae caused it! There's a male celeb (I forget who) who's recently had same issues. (Stuck in my head cos of dad) but again he won't have been on pill.

There's a lot of things can cause the issues you've had.

No decent lawyer would even consider sueing.

YouAreNotImportant · 22/05/2018 16:20

Don't waste NHS time and money (not that I think you'd be successful anyway) because you couldn't be bothered to understand what drug you were taking.

Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:21

I think, on balance, the illnesses were caused by the medication, and the leaflet wasn't written in such a way as to alert a person to the potential for bodily damage. There are such cases. My question really was about cases, here, in the UK - specifically tho, against private pharma companies.

thanks

Jem :)

OP posts:
Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:22

I don't think it's unreasonable to mention pancreas, liver, CBD damage as a potential side effect.

Yes, those issues can be caused by other things, of course they can. But within a month, even weeks of taking the med, those issues began. It's far too much of a coincidence.

thanks

Jem :)

OP posts:
Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:23

Hi 'youarenotimportant' - the leaflet was read. It missed off the part about pancreas, CBD damage and liver damage.

thanks

Jem :)

OP posts:
Sirzy · 22/05/2018 16:25

Well for a start you would have to prove that they had ever had those things reported to them as a side effect ....

Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:26

Sirzy, yep.

OP posts:
DiplomaticDecorum · 22/05/2018 16:27

Oh don't be so silly. Of course you can't sue. And stop with the

'Thanks Jem Smile ' bollocks, there's really no need.

You were ill, you were treated, you don't know what caused the illness. You're over it now, so live your life and be grateful.

RiaOverTheRainbow · 22/05/2018 16:28

Most of my prescription meds have listed death as a possible side effect. Would you really not have taken it if you'd had 'rare complications of rare side-effects' listed?

PalePinkSwan · 22/05/2018 16:28

People have - of course - successfully sued pharmaceutical companies, yes.

However you seem to want to sue because you think the leaflet should have listed every possible complication of every possible side effect.

That is simply not required by the law on labelling of drugs. It’s just not. It’s also silly in terms of how long and overwhelming the leaflets would be.

Ultimately if you read the side effects list and aren’t confident you know what it all means, you should ask your Gp or pharmacist for advice, or use a reputable website for more information.

I have worked as a lawyer on medical negligence cases and don’t think you have a hope of winning this. You’d be much better off just focusing on your health and on coming to terms with this, don’t waste your energy.

Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:28

Hi 'diplomaticdecorum' - hey, we'll see. I'll do research elsewhere but thanks for the....idiot-comment, lol..

thanks

Jem :)

OP posts:
YouAreNotImportant · 22/05/2018 16:29

But you have no evidence that your problems were caused by the medication.

Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:29

Hi 'riaovertherainbow' - I'd think twice now about 'death' as a side effect!!! for sure!!

thanks

Jem :)

OP posts:
titchy · 22/05/2018 16:31

Don't ever have a general anaesthetic then - there's a risk of death.

Eryri1981 · 22/05/2018 16:31

Has an adverse drug reaction form been submitted regarding your reaction? That would be the first thing to make sure of, at least that way the drugs company can know the severity of your reaction and if this is of concern to them (ie worse than previous recorded reactions of this type) also the drugs company and consequently the GPs prescribing the drug and the patients taking it can know, better, the real risk of the gall bladder side effects.

But as for suing the GP... You are being ridiculous.

If for some reason the drug manufacturers has been downplaying the gall bladder risks (likelihood or severity) and you can some how prove it, you might have a case there... But good luck taking on the pharmaceutical industry!!

Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:32

Hi 'youarenotimportant' - and we have no evidence that 'anything at all' exists, if we look at what quantum physics tells us.

Medical/pharma negligence is a thing, not sure whether you know that. I'm talking about the timing being very close. I'm not about to upload a research paper to you, to try to convince you that it's a possibility, lols..

thanks

Jem :)

OP posts:
Original poster
jemimavintage · 22/05/2018 16:32

Hi 'titchy' - I will avoid like the plague, for sure!!

Jem :)

OP posts:
OhDearMavis · 22/05/2018 16:33

jem
You were unlucky. It's shit but trying to blame someone else just seems grabby at best (I assume you're after compensation)
You read the leaflet and took the medication knowing it was a side effect. You just assumed it wouldn't be you. You were wrong.

LavenderDoll · 22/05/2018 16:34

No you have no case

Thanks Lavender

SoftlyCatchyMonkey1 · 22/05/2018 16:35

Had they listed a possible complication as "serious gallbladder and pancreas disease"
Would this have stopped you taking the medication?

MsHippo · 22/05/2018 16:35

I've done a very quick literature search on cerelle and gallbladder disease. Firstly it is a known and well studied although rare side effect. From a number of studies, the risk rating for taking cerelle is about 1.01 - 1.1 i.e. it increases your risk by between 1 and 10 percent. However, the risk without cerelle of getting gallbladder disease is small already (on the order of 1 in 1000) so cerelle increases the risk of gallbladder disease from 100 in 100,000 to between 101 and 110 in 100,000. Basically what this data says is you can't blame cerelle for your unfortunate illness and you won't have a leg to stand on in sueing the doctor who prescribed it.

Bombardier25966 · 22/05/2018 16:35

You're being utterly ridiculous.

In order to establish negligence you must demonstrate:

That you were owed a duty of care. Yes

That duty of care has been breached. No. The GP did not do anything that another clinician would do. You were given a drug commonly prescribed for your condition and you had no pre existing conditions that would deem it inappropriate.

As a direct result of the breach, you were caused harm. You don't have any medical evidence of a link between the medication and your condition. All because you hadn't had any apparent problems before, that's not to say that it was either a) a coincidence or that b) you didn't already have issues that you were not aware of. Even if you could cause a link any claim would have already failed at the second stage.