Case Name: KINTIGH v. ABBOTT PHARMACY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1993-06-07
Citations: 200 Mich. App. 92
Docket Number: Docket No. 143369
Parties: KINTIGH v ABBOTT PHARMACY
Judges: Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Weaver and D. E. Shelton, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 200
Pages: 92–105

Head Matter:
KINTIGH v ABBOTT PHARMACY
Docket No. 143369.
Submitted March 31, 1993, at Grand Rapids.
Decided June 7, 1993, at 10:15 a.m.
Leave to appeal sought.
David C. Kintigh brought an action in the Kent Circuit Court against Abbott Pharmacy, Benny Abbott, and other pharmacies and pharmacists, alleging negligence in the defendants’ failure to discover his addiction to codeine and their repeated sale of nonprescription cough syrup containing codeine, a Schedule V controlled substance. The court, Dennis B. Leiber, J., granted summary disposition for the defendants, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
The plaintiffs claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery. A pharmacist does not owe a customer a legal duty to monitor drug usage.
Affirmed.
D.E. Shelton, J., dissenting, stated that a pharmacist who dispenses controlled, addictive, nonprescription drugs in violation of applicable statutes, regulations, and professional standards owes an actionable legal duty to a customer who develops or furthers an addiction to those drugs.
Druggists — Negligence — Controlled Substances.
A pharmacist owes no legal duty to monitor a customer’s usage of nonprescription medication containing a controlled substance listed in Schedule V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 812).
References
Am Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons §§ 55, 63.
See ALR Index under Drugstores and Druggists.
William G. Reamon, Sr., for David C. Kintigh.
Tolley, Fisher & Verwys, P.C. (by Mark H. Verwys and James B. Doezema), for Abbott Pharmacy and Benny Abbott._
Kluczynski, Girtz & Vogelzang (by Ella S. Parker), for Bud Discount Pharmacy, Russell M. Ripma, Lewis Langridge, Richard T. Gibson, and Edwin C. Gort.
Denenberg, TuiHey, Bocan, Jamieson, Black, Hopkins & Ewald, P.C. (by Curt A. Benson and Michelle F. Kitch), for Cascade Pharmacy, Charles J. Leen, Heartside Pharmacy, James G. Coombs, and Peter L. Middleton.
Davis & Fajen (by Peter A. Davis and Nelson P. Miller), for Eastgate Pharmacy and Ward Duyser.
Farr & Oosterhouse (by John R. Oostema), for Finer Wyoming Pharmacy and Robert B. Feighner.
Bremer, Wade, Nelson, Mabbitt & Lohr (by Phillip J. Nelson), for The Medicine Shoppe and Kurt Johnson.
Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan (by Robert E. Attmore), for Gene Meyer Pharmacy, Edward G. Cantor, and Edward G. Sindelar.
Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge (by Lance R. Mather), for Reagan’s Pharmacy and B. Terrence Reagan.
Miller, Canñeld, Paddock & Stone (by Gary E. Mitchell), for Rite-Aid Discount Pharmacy, Timothy Bos, Robert G. Mitchell, Joseph Bristol, David R. Smith, and Sweet’s Pharmacy.
Linsey, Strain & Worsfold, P.C. (by Peter D. Bosch), for Tom’s Pharmacy, Thomas J. Taylor, Richard Kleff, and David Zeile.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Weaver and D. E. Shelton, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Weaver, J.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants, twelve pharmacies and twenty-two pharmacists, alleging that defendants repeatedly sold Schedule V (21 USC 812), nonprescription, codeine-based cough syrup to plaintiff, perpetuating his preexisting substance abuse problem. Plaintiff alleged defendants' repeated cough syrup sales to him constituted negligence and a breach of the professional standard defendants owed him. Defendants collectively moved for summary disposition under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(0(10). The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), stating that they owed no duty to identify an addicted customer and then refuse to sell him a controlled substance. Plaintiff now appeals as of right. We affirm.
Plaintiff asserts that the pharmacists owed him the duty to refrain from dispensing to him Schedule V, nonprescription controlled substances. We disagree. The claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery. Wade v Dep't of Corrections, 439 Mich 158; 483 NW2d 26 (1992).
This Court has previously rejected the theory that a pharmacist owes a customer a legal duty to monitor drug usage. Adkins v Mong, 168 Mich App 726; 425 NW2d 151 (1988). We find the pharmacists owed no duty to plaintiff to discover his addicted status; failing knowledge of that, they had no duty to refuse to sell to him.
Affirmed.
Michael J. Kelly, P.J., concurred.