Court Opinion

ID: 9526087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:12:02.722623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:22.021829
License: Public Domain

CANTRELL, P.J., M.S.,
dissenting.
I concur in Parts HA, IIB, III, IV, and V of the majority opinion. I disagree, *33however, with the conclusion reached in Part IE. Therefore, I dissent.
Part IE of the opinion contains the conclusion that the trial court erred in granting Dr. Miller’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding terbutaline’s off-label use, including its labeling and the parallel PDR reference. I think this evidence is irrelevant to the issues on which this case was tried, or that were set to be tried when the trial judge granted the motion. As I read them, these issues were (1) that Dr. Miller deviated from the standard of care in using the drug so late in Ms. Richardsons experienced chest pains. The only relevance the label and PDR reference would have is whether the drug should have been used at all. All the experts agreed that the drug is commonly used to prevent or stop premature labor.
Dr. Miller joined issue on the plaintiffs two theories and also contested the theory that the drug in fact caused Ms. Richardson’s heart attack. In my opinion these issues fairly went to the jury and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
Therefore, I would affirm the verdict.