Case Name: Shelia ALLGOOD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP., doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-13
Citations: 314 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 08-30329
Parties: Shelia ALLGOOD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP., doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
Shelia ALLGOOD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP., doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-30329.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 13, 2009.
Lewis Scott Joanen, Bruno & Bruno, New Orleans, LA, David L. Colvin, David L. Colvin & Associates, Gretna, LA, Arnold Anderson Vickery, Vickery, Waldner & Mallia, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, Mark S. Brown, Washington, DC, James B. Irwin, Irwin, Fritchie, Urquhart & Moore, New Orleans, LA, Tamar P. Halpern, Phillips Lytle, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before GARWOOD, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this action brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA"), La. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.51 et seq., plaintiffs appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, the maker of the prescription drug Paxil. Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in applying the learned intermediary doctrine to their LPLA suit. We disagree. The district court properly followed our circuit precedent, which has expressly held that "Louisiana applies the 'learned intermediary doctrine' to products liability claims involving prescription drugs." Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 265 (5th Cir.2002). After reviewing the briefs and the record and hearing oral argument from the parties, we conclude that the district court correctly applied the learned intermediary doctrine in this case. Consequently, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.