 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Association v. Fisons Corp.9/16/1993
able to the Consumer Protection Act cause of action. The court denied Dr. Klicpera's request for further attorneys' fees based upon a theory of equitable indemnification.
Pursuant to the injunctive relief section of the Consumer Protection Act, the court ordered the drug company to send the June 30, 1981 letter regarding the dangers of theophylline poisoning to the Washington State Medical Association.
The drug company sought direct review by this court and we accepted review. Dr. Klicpera and his insurer (WSPIE) cross-appeal from the trial court's refusal to award discovery sanctions for the alleged discovery violations. WSPIE also appeals the trial court's dismissal of its Consumer Protection Act claim against the drug company.
The parties' 63 assignments of error raise 9 principal issues.
Issues
Issue One. Under the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, does a physician whose reputation is injured because the physician misprescribed a medication have standing to sue a drug company which engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices?
Issue Two. Does a physician who prescribes a drug which injures a patient have a cause of action to recover from a drug company for the physician's own mental pain and suffering, and attendant physical pain, under the product liability act (RCW 7.72), based on the company's failure to warn?
Issue Three. If the facts of this case fail to support a product liability claim, should this physician be allowed to bring a common law negligence cause of action based on the drug company's failure to warn about the risks of the drug?
Issue Four. Did the trial court err in refusing to allow the physician's insurer's Consumer Protection Act claim to go to the jury?
Issue Five. Did the trial court err in excluding the testimony of the drug company's sales representative based upon Rule of Evidence 406?
Issue Six. Were the physician's state law claims preempted by federal law?
Issue Seven. Should the trial court have granted a new trial or reduced the jury award based on the argument that the damages awarded were excessive?
Issue Eight. Did the trial court err in calculating the amount of attorneys' fees awarded for the Consumer Protection Act claim?
Issue Nine. Did the trial court err in refusing to sanction the drug company and its attorneys for discovery abuse?
Decision
The general question in this case is whether damages may be awarded to a prescribing physician who is allegedly injured by a drug company's failure to give proper warning of the dangers of a drug which the physician prescribes to a patient and, if so, under what legal theory or theories and for what kind of damages.
Issue One.
Conclusion. Under the Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86), a physician whose reputation is injured has standing to sue a drug company which engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice by failing to warn the physician of the dangers of its drug about which it had knowledge.
The Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW 19.86.020, provides:
Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
RCW 19.86.090 creates a private right of action by providing:
Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of RCW 19.86.020 . . . may bring a civil
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|