Court Opinion

ID: 9473371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:28:03.268698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:29.526392
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in Chief Judge Lay’s opinion dissenting from the order denying the petition for rehearing en banc. I agree that in the present case the district court erred in granting the motion for directed verdict. I write separately only to state my agreement with the substantive analysis of the dissenting panel opinion. I do not agree with the majority panel opinion’s requirement of “direct proof” of the physician’s knowledge or its discussion of proximate cause in the context of the “learned intermediary” doctrine. Specifically, I would argue that, assuming for purposes of argument only that the warning given by the manufacturer is inadequate, the manufacturer cannot escape liability if the evidence shows only that the learned intermediary “should have known" of adverse side effects but did not.