 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allberry v. Parkmor Drug9/16/2005
ly reason that imposing such a duty on the pharmacist would place the pharmacist between the physician-who knows the patient's physical condition-and the patient and could lead to harmful interference in the patient-physician relationship. See, e.g., Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 764 N.E.2d 814, 821 (Mass. 2002) (holding that in the absence of a voluntarily assumed duty, "where the pharmacist has no specific knowledge of an increased danger to a particular customer, the pharmacist has no duty to warn that customer of potential side effects"); Happel v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 766 N.E.2d 1118, 1129 (Ill. 2002) (holding that "a narrow duty to warn exists where . . . a pharmacy has patient-specific information about drug allergies, and knows that the drug being prescribed is contraindicated for the individual patient"); Moore v. Memorial Hosp., 825 So.2d 658, 664 (Miss. 2002) (extending the "learned intermediary" doctrine to pharmacists in Mississippi); but see Dooley v. Everett, 805 S.W.2d 380, 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (declining to rule as a matter of law on whether the doctrine extended to pharmacists but criticizing the extension of the learned intermediary doctrine to pharmacists); appeal denied. By contrast, a few jurisdictions have imposed a duty on pharmacies that goes beyond merely filling prescriptions accurately. See, e.g., Horner v. Spalitto, 1 S.W.3d 519, 523-24 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that a pharmacy could be found negligent for filling a prescription for what the pharmacist knew to be a lethal dose), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc., 880 P.2d 1129, 1132-34 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994) (imposing a duty for failing to warn the customer when filling two prescriptions that adversely interacted with one another), review denied; Hand v. Krakowski, 89 A.D.2d 650, 651 (N.Y. 1982) (finding a duty when pharmacy failed to warn the customer of the drug's adverse interaction with alcohol where the customer was known by the pharmacist to be an alcoholic).
Because we find the majority view to be more persuasive, today, we reaffirm our holding in Ingram. As such, Parkmor had no duty to warn Allberry of the side effects associated with Caverject. Parkmor also had no duty to give Allberry the manufacturer's product information, which contained certain warnings about the use of Caverject, as such information was not included in the prescription itself. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Parkmor.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Parkmor.
Affirmed.
SHARPNACK, J., and DARDEN, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|