The court case links are listed at the end, following my personal account:
I have chosen to wait eight years before writing now on this board. I took finasteride for the first time in August 2010 and, after discovering this website, weened myself off of finasteride in early October 2010. Symptoms of sexual dysfunction, after resolving for a few weeks, resumed and worsened in November 2010 and beyond. After having multiple endocrinologists profess ignorance about–or worse, challenge the legitimacy of–post-finasteride syndrome (PFS), I was able to meet out of state in March 2011 with Dr. Alan Jacobs (New York City and Mt. Kisko, NY) who, by then, had written articles on PFS and was affiliated with this board. I also subsequently met with one of the authors (Andre Guay MD, now deceased) of the December 2010 Boston University retrospective study which gave credence to claims which are well known by now to those reading here. Dr. Guay was then head of the Center for Sexual Function at Lahey Clinic here in Massachusetts.
In the spring of 2011 I began twice monthly injections of testosterone which continue to this day. Gynecomastia subsequently developed due to the testosterone injections and the consequent rise of estradiol / estrogen. Apparently the body wants to maintain a ratio between testosterone and estrogen, thus the increase in estradiol as testosterone is increased. I was subsequently prescribed anastrozole (Arimidex) to reduce breast tissue. In retrospect it would have been, in my opinion, wiser to have started me on anastrozole simultaneously with the testosterone, to potentially prevent breast enlargement from occurring in the first place. Apparently, while anastrozole does reduce breast “tissue”, breast “fat” reportedly takes its place, leaving one’s (newly altered) appearance regrettably unchanged.
Legal case: In the fall of 2011 I sought out a small, yet experienced law firm south of Boston which was eager to take my case. My legal case initially had 3 defendants: (1) Mylan pharmaceutical company (manufacturer of finasteride); (2) the prescribing urologist who did not warn me of the risks of finasteride; and (3) Merck. Regarding Mylan: The US Supreme Court, in June 2013, ruled that generic manufacturers could not be held responsible for their labeling, given that they were beholden to follow the label of the brand name manufacturer. As many know here, it was a very controversial (5-4) decision and I believe it’s only a matter of time before that decision gets reversed. As a result we could not move forward with a case against Mylan. Regarding the urologist: My lawyers eventually advised dropping the case against the prescribing MD because my lawyers came to see, and I agreed, that it was too high a bar to expect a urologist to know the potential of persisting symptoms after discontinuation of use, given that even endocrinologists and certain specialists did not know of such an outcome, at that point in time. In the mix here, too, was the fact that I had never been comfortable with the idea of suing a doctor.
So, finally, there was Merck. Merck could not be charged with “product liability” because, in a word (or six), I did not take their product. So, we set out to charge Merck with failing their duty to warn–of the “persisting” adverse symptoms related to finasteride, even after discontinuation of use. Merck, on more than one occasion, sought to have the case thrown out. And at the Superior Court level in Massachusetts, Merck’s point of view prevailed. However, we appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. While the case was waiting to be eventually heard by the Appeals Court, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) essentially snagged my case away from the appellate court docket, due to the significance of the case. In March of 2018 the Massachusetts SJC ruled unanimously that someone in my position (i.e. someone who takes a generic medication and is consequently harmed) CAN sue the brand name manufacturer, provided the harmed person can show “gross” negligence on the part of the brand name manufacturer (i.e. the manufacturer knew of the potential harm and did not warn re: the potential harm) and also show “grave bodily injury” to oneself as a result of the failure to warn. My Massachusetts SJC case presumably will help others across the country, if not particularly in Massachusetts.
The legal decision was picked up by Reuters, Bloomberg News, and other national outlets. I am sharing here in the event the case can be of help. Below I have attached two journalistic, summary links about my case. With greater research, other links are available. I want to take a moment to wish everyone well, and to express my gratitude. One never knows how one’s courage to comment on a board like this will positively affect others, so continue to show such courage. This board was a huge help to me when supportive voices were otherwise not present, findable . My obvious single regret is that I did not discover the board in advance of picking up my prescription. My very best, BR.
