Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol_22_issue_3?pg=96
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:05:59+00:00

Document:
Dear Doctor mailer on their behalf if they think a label change is necessary.
74. The “learned intermediary doctrine” is substantive state law. Generally, it requires that “only the physician who prescribes an inherently dangerous drug need be warned (and not his patient)[.]” See Nix v. SmithKline Beecham, Corp., No. CIV06-43-PHX-SMM, 2007 WL 4219157, *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2007); Dyer v. Best Pharmacal, 118 Ariz. 465, 468 (Ariz. App. Div. 1987) (“ A drug manufacturer has discharged his duty to the public if he has properly warned the administering physician of the contraindications and possible side effects of the drug.”). If there is no evidence that the prescribing physician would have changed his mind absent other additional warnings, there is no proximate cause. Gebhardt v. Mentor Corp., 191 F.R.D. 180, 184-85 (D. Ariz. 1999) (granting summary judgment for defendant where there was no evidence that treating physician would have changed treatment if different warnings had been given).
75. See, e.g., Gebhardt v. Mentor Corp., 191 F.R.D. 180, 184-85 & n.1 (D. Ariz. 1999) (granting summary judgment based on lack of causation where plaintiff’s doctor did not review package insert, but relied on other information such as “prior experience, peer articles, and an interview” with the inventor of the medical device at issue), aff’d Gebhardt v. Mentor Corp., 15 Fed. Appx. 540 (9th Cir. 2001); Southwest Pet Prods., Inc. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 273 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1062 (D. Ariz. 2003) (granting summary judgment on failure-to-warn claim where plaintiff “presented absolutely no evidence that a different warning would have changed its conduct”); Owens v. Wyeth, No. 185 EDA 2009, 2010 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2095, at *6 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 26, 2010) (dismissing failure-to-warn claim where plaintiff failed to show alternative warning would have changed prescribing doctor’s decision); Banker v. Hoehn, 718 N.Y.S.2d 438, 441 (N.Y. A.D 2000) (“in the absence of reviewing any operating manuals for the [device]” by the prescriber, summary judgment granted on lack of proximate cause).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.