The very long and very sad soap opera linked to the Dépakine scandal has just experienced a major twist. By ordering Sanofi, Thursday, May 12, to compensate up to 450,000 euros to a family whose daughter exposed in utero to the drug subsequently suffered from serious psychomotor development disorders, the Nanterre court paved the way for a better individual recognition of each of the exposed children. They would be thousands.
–
This content is blocked because you have not accepted cookies.
Clicking on ” I accept “cookies will be stored and you will be able to view the content .
Clicking on “I accept all cookies”you authorize the deposit of cookies for the storage of your data on our sites and applications for the purposes of personalization and advertising targeting.
You retain the option to withdraw your consent at any time.
Manage my choices
–
–
After the case of little Camille, whose family obtained a favorable judgment and compensation of up to three million euros for the malformations from which she suffers, it is this time that disorders are recognized and taken into account. But also, and above all, the culpable lack of information on the Dépakine notice until 2006 which is pinpointed. A decision that could pave the way for a number of judgments to come: in Nanterre alone, 23 cases involving 272 claimants are currently pending.
Despite this new decision on the merits, and these successive recognitions by the courts of faults concerning the obligations of vigilance and information, Sanofi continues its fight by multiplying requests and appeals, thus prolonging the procedures.
A strategy of which it is difficult, unfavorable decision after unfavorable decision, to understand the basis. Except to think that Sanofi is trying to escape its responsibilities by exhausting the opposing parties psychologically and/or financially.
In this context, without being as radical as the Association for Helping Parents of Children Suffering from Anti-convulsant Syndrome ( Apesac ) which qualifies the behavior of the laboratory as “villainous and unworthy”, it is clear that the question of respect for families, all very hard-hit, is raised.
