Case Name: Annette Lorraine ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McNEILAB, INC., d/b/a McNeil Pharmaceutical, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1987-10-29
Citations: 831 F.2d 92
Docket Number: No. 87-3198
Parties: Annette Lorraine ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McNEILAB, INC., d/b/a McNeil Pharmaceutical, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GEE, GARWOOD and JONES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 831
Pages: 92–93

Head Matter:
Annette Lorraine ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McNEILAB, INC., d/b/a McNeil Pharmaceutical, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 87-3198
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 29, 1987.
Arthur Cobb, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Henry B. Alsobrook, Jr., Richard B. Ea-son, III, Adams & Reese, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Before GEE, GARWOOD and JONES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Annette Anderson, joined by her husband, appeals an adverse summary judgment entered in her Louisiana diversity action against the defendant manufacturer of Zomax, a prescription drug. Zomax was prescribed by a physician for her use, when needed, for sinus problems. No sooner had she taken the first dose than she suffered a severe reaction, with — she claims — resulting residual damage to her heart. We affirm.
Counsel for the Andersons defines as his sole issue advanced on appeal:
Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the adequacy of a warning accompanying a prescription drug.
We reject this suggestion that a mere allegation of inadequacy in the warning of side effects on a prescription drug makes a jury issue. This case itself is illustrative of why we do so.
It is undisputed that the defendant — by means of drug package inserts, the Zomax listing in the Physician's Desk Reference, and broadcast letters to physicians — repeatedly warned against prescribing Zomax for persons, such as Mrs. Anderson, who suffer from aspirin sensitivity. Under Louisiana law, a drug manufacturer has discharged its duty to consumers of its prescription drugs when it has reasonably informed prescribing physicians of the dangers of harm from such a drug. Cobb v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., 444 So.2d 203 (La.App.1983). We agree with the trial court that the means and the warning presented here were sufficient as a matter of law.
AFFIRMED.
. This claim is hotly disputed, but we need not reach it.
. Plaintiffs advance a belated claim of negligence, not made in the complaint to the trial court. Such a claim comes too late. Moreover, "at the point of warning of drug side effects . negligence and strict liability become . identical." Miller v. Upjohn Co., 465 So.2d 42, 43 (La.App.1985).