Opinion ID: 2338960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The learned-intermediary doctrine prevents pharmacists from interfering with the doctor-patient relationship

Text: To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) legal causation, and (4) damages. Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, 125 Nev. ___, ___, 221 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2009). At issue in this case is the interplay between the first two elements: the scope of Walgreens' duty, and whether it may have breached this duty. Walgreens acknowledges that it owed the Klasches' mother a duty to correctly fill her prescription, but contends that it did not owe her a duty to warn her of the risk the medication posed to her or to notify her prescribing doctor of that risk. Walgreens contends that these additional duties would be foreclosed under the learned-intermediary doctrine. Traditionally, the learned-intermediary doctrine has been used to insulate drug manufacturers from liability in products-liability lawsuits. [7] Under the learned-intermediary doctrine, a drug manufacturer is immune from liability to a patient taking the manufacturer's drug so long as the manufacturer has provided the patient's doctor with all relevant safety information for that drug. [8] It is then up to the patient's doctorwho has the benefit of knowing the patient's specific situationto convey to the patient any information that the doctor deems relevant. [9] Jurisdictions adopting the learned-intermediary doctrine in the context of pharmacist/customer tort litigation have put forth a similar rationale: that between the doctor and the pharmacist, the doctor is in the best position to warn the customer of a given medication's generalized risks. [10] Or, viewed more pragmatically, the doctrine prevents pharmacists from constantly second-guessing a prescribing doctor's judgment simply in order to avoid his or her own liability to the customer. [11] In this sense, the learned-intermediary doctrine preserves the pharmacist's role as a conduit for dispensing much-needed prescription medications. Because we believe that these public-policy considerations are sound, we adopt the learned-intermediary doctrine in the context of pharmacist/customer tort litigation. Accordingly, Nevada pharmacists have no duty to warn their customers of the generalized risks inherent in the prescriptions they fill.