Opinion ID: 1967565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Levophed Package Insert

Text: Dr. Haidak claims that the protracted administration of Levophed after his coronary by-pass surgery contributed to his development of ION. Levophed is a powerful vasoconstrictor used post-operatively to maintain the flow of blood to the heart and brain. The package insert to Levophed states that it should not be given to hypotensive patients (such as Dr. Haidak) except as an emergency measure, and lists as an adverse reaction: ischemic injury due to potent vasoconstrictor action and tissue hypoxia. In order to meet his burden of causation, Dr. Haidak sought to introduce the package insert into evidence through the testimony of Dr. Strom. The trial court determined that the insert should not be admitted through the testimony of Dr. Strom, however, because the judge considered Dr. Strom unqualified to testify about Levophed. The jury requested a copy of the package insert when they began their deliberations. The trial court declined the request, noting that Dr. Haidak had failed to introduce the insert into evidence at trial. [6] We have held that a package insert is `not conclusive evidence of the standard or accepted practice in the use of the drug by physicians and surgeons, nor that a departure from such directions is negligent. But it is prima facie proof of a proper method of use ....' Garvey v. O'Donoghue, 530 A.2d 1141, 1145-46 (D.C. 1987) (quoting Julien v. Barker, 75 Idaho 413, 272 P.2d 718, 724 (1954)). Although package inserts are normally admissible, Dr. Haidak, despite numerous opportunities, never offered the package insert into evidence. [7] This failure compels us to conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment.