Court Opinion

ID: 9475102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:17:30.885851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:30.920898
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Senior District Judge,
dissenting:
With deference to the opinion of the majority, I must respectfully dissent.
It seems to me that the majority opinion leaves more issues unanswered than answered; the main one is whether Scher-ing’s warning was or was not sufficient. To me, the warning was clearly sufficient. Stone v. Smith, Kline and French Laboratories, 447 So.2d 1301 (Ala.1984). I think it is the duty of the courts to meet the issues and not leave them unanswered. This issue was briefed by both litigants and is squarely before us.
The majority opinion goes to lengths to point out what the doctor did not know. More importantly, is what the doctor did know. He certainly knew that the dosage should be discontinued when the patient’s white blood count falls below 4,000. If he did not, it was certainly not Schering’s fault, for as the majority opinion states: “A white blood count below 4,000 indicates the possible presence of leukopenia, a potential forerunner of aplastic anemia, in which case gold therapy should be stopped at once. Both Schering and Merck had such instructions accompanying their products in package information sheets.”
Mrs. Tatum’s death was diagnosed as aplastic anemia. As for the product Solga-nol and its use, Schering certainly had provided the doctor with all the knowledge he needed in the posture of this case. And as stated above, the warnings given by Scher-ing more than met the standard contemplated by Stone v. Smith, Kline and. French Laboratories, supra.
This case should have ended when the $450,000 negotiated settlement was reached between Merck, the doctor and the plaintiff. To prolong the same through legal manuevers is not justified.
I would affirm Judge Hobb’s granting of the summary judgment, but if, as the majority holds, the case was not ripe for summary judgment on the theory that the doctor “knew it all”, then certainly it is ripe for such judgment on the “adequacy of warning” theory. Helena Rubinstein, Inc. v. Bau, 433 F.2d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir.1970); Sellers v. Regents of Univ. of California, 432 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir.1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 981, 91 S.Ct. 1194, 28 L.Ed.2d 333 (1971). Hence, the harmless error theory prevails.