Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama answered certified questions concerning whether a pharmacist has a duty to warn of risks or side effects associated with a prescription medication and whether any such duty extends to foreseeable third parties. The court held that the learned-intermediary doctrine forecloses such a duty when a pharmacist fills a physician's valid prescription, subject to instructions or warnings expressly required by the prescription or applicable law. Both certified questions were answered in the negative.

Holdings

1. The learned-intermediary doctrine forecloses any duty on a pharmacist filling a physician's prescription that is valid and regular on its face to warn the physician's patient, the pharmacist's customer, or any other ultimate consumer of the risks or potential side effects of the prescribed medication, except when the prescription requires the warning or an applicable statute or regulation expressly requires it.
2. To the extent the learned-intermediary doctrine applies, foreseeability of injury does not provide a basis for imposing liability on the pharmacist.
3. To the extent the learned-intermediary doctrine applies, the duty to determine whether the medication as prescribed is dangerously defective is owed by the prescribing physician, not by the pharmacist filling the prescription.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a pharmacist who fills a prescription has a duty under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, common-law negligence, or other Alabama law to warn of foreseeable injuries or potential side effects from the prescribed medication.
2. If such a duty exists, whether it extends beyond the pharmacy customer to third parties, including a fetus, whose injuries are reasonably foreseeable when the prescription is filled.
3. Whether the learned-intermediary doctrine forecloses a pharmacist's duty to warn when the prescription is valid and regular on its face.

Disposition

other