Title: Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

887 So. 2d 881 (2004)
Judith D. WALLS, as mother and natural guardian of Brittany N. Adams
v.
ALPHARMA USPD, INC., f/k/a Barre-National, Inc., et al.
1010645.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 5, 2004.
*882 Stephen W. Drinkard and Dana G. Taunton of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, for plaintiff.
Steven F. Casey and Jenelle R. Evans of Balch & Bingham, LLP, Birmingham, for defendants Alpharma USPD, Inc., and Alphama, Inc.
Jack B. Hinton, Jr., and Andrew W. Christman of Gidiere, Hinton & Herndon, Montgomery, for defendant Revco.
J. Kenneth Guin, Jr., Carbon Hill, for amicus curiae Alabama Pharmacy Association, Inc., in support of the defendants.
JOHNSTONE, Justice.
By an order dated February 8, 2002, this Court accepted certified questions from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division. The questions, as certified by the federal court, read as follows:
The United Stated District Court supplied the following facts:
The plaintiff and the defendants have briefed an issue critical to the questions *883 certified by the federal court. The critical issue is whether the learned-intermediary doctrine forecloses the existence of a duty upon a pharmacist filling a prescription to warn foreseeable consumers of the risks or potential side effects of the prescribed medication. This Court has not previously addressed this particular issue.
Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (11th Cir.2000) (citations omitted; emphasis added).
In Stone v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, 447 So. 2d 1301 (Ala.1984), this Court applied the learned-intermediary doctrine to the issue of the existence of a duty upon manufacturers of prescription medications to warn ultimate consumers (patients of physicians). In Stone, this Court addressed the following question, among others, certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit:
447 So. 2d  at 1303. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Court explained:
Stone, 447 So. 2d  at 1304-05 (footnote omitted; first emphasis original; second emphasis added).
Although the appellate courts of Alabama have not addressed the issue whether a pharmacist filling a prescription owes a duty to warn his or her customers, or other ultimate consumers, of the risks or potential side effects of prescribed medications, various other state appellate courts have addressed the issue or some of its aspects. These decisions are persuasive authority on the issue of whether to extend the learned-intermediary doctrine to pharmacists.
In Nichols v. Central Merchandise, Inc., 16 Kan.App.2d 65, 817 P.2d 1131 (1991), the Kansas Court of Appeals cited the application of the learned-intermediary doctrine to manufacturers of prescription medications and then extended the application of the doctrine to pharmacists filling prescriptions for medications:
Nichols, 16 Kan.App.2d at 67-68, 817 P.2d  at 1133-34 (first emphasis original; other emphasis added). Accord Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316, 764 N.E.2d 814 (2002); Moore ex rel. Moore v. Memorial Hosp. of Gulfport, 825 So. 2d 658 (Miss.2002); Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 526 Pa. 208, 584 A.2d 1383 (1991); Johnson v. Walgreen Co., 675 So. 2d 1036 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996); Walker v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 209 Ga.App. 517, 434 S.E.2d 63 (1993); Fakhouri v. Taylor, 248 Ill.App.3d 328, 187 Ill.Dec. 927, 618 N.E.2d 518 (1993); Kinney v. Hutchinson, 449 So. 2d 696 (La.Ct.App.1984); Adkins v. Mong, 168 Mich.App. 726, 425 N.W.2d 151 (1988); Ferguson v. Williams, 101 N.C.App. 265, 399 S.E.2d 389 (1991); Griffith v. Blatt, 158 Or.App. 204, 973 P.2d 385 (1999); Morgan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 30 S.W.3d 455 (Tex.App.2000); Silves v. King, 93 Wash. App. 873, 970 P.2d 790 (1999).
*886 In McKee v. American Home Products Corp., 113 Wash. 2d 701, 782 P.2d 1045 (1989), the Washington Supreme Court stated:
113 Wash. 2d  at 711-12, 782 P.2d  at 1051.
On the basis of the foregoing authority and persuasive authority, we hold as follows. The learned-intermediary doctrine forecloses any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician's prescription, valid and regular on its face, to warn the physician's patient, the pharmacist's customer, or any other ultimate consumer of the risks or potential side effects of the prescribed medication except insofar as the prescription orders, or an applicable statute or regulation expressly requires, that an instruction or warning be included on the label of the dispensed medication or be otherwise delivered. To the extent that the learned-intermediary doctrine applies, foreseeability of injury is eliminated as a basis for liability upon the pharmacist. To the extent that the learned-intermediary doctrine applies, the duty to determine whether the medication as prescribed is dangerously defective is owed by the prescribing physician and not by the pharmacist filling the prescription. Any question of what persons are due the duty owed by the prescribing physician is not before us. Accordingly, both questions certified to us are answered in the negative.
QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.