There exist, in many jurisdictions, confusion and uncertainty with regard to the legal duty of pharmacists to warn their patients of the potential risks of their medication. Review of the legal evolution of this duty in one state with recent experience is instructive.
Data Sources
Published opinions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Conclusions
The cases are consistent with the idea that if the pharmacist warned about risks that had a reasonably foreseeable potential of occurring, then there would be no liability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.National Association of Boards of Pharmacy: Survey of Pharmacy Law.Chicago: National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, 1991–92:59.
2.
799 S.W. 2d 249 (Term. App. 1990).
3.
Indiana and Illinois in the following cases: Ingram v. Hooks Drugs, 476 NE 2d 881 (Ind. App. 4th Dist. 1985) and Leesley v. West, 518 NE 2d 758 (165 Ill. App. 3d 135, 1988).
4.
799 S.W.2d at 254.
5.
For more thorough discussion see Brushwood DB. The duty to counsel: reviewing a decade of litigation.DICP Ann Pharmacother 1991;25:195–204.
6.
805 S.W. 2d 380 (Tenn. App. 1990).
7.
805 S.W. 2d at 384.
8.
Id. at 385.
9.
Id. at 386.
10.
1991 Term. App. Lexis 656.
11.
Id. at 14.
12.
Id. at 18.
13.
Id. at 41.
14.
For more extensive coverage see: Brushwood DB, Simonsmeier LM. Drug information for patients.Legal Med 1986;7(3):279,283.
15.
FriedenthalJH, KaneMK, MillerAR.Ascertaining the applicable law. In: Civil procedure. 1st ed. Mineola, NY: West Publishing1985:190.
16.
HolmesOWJr.The common law.Boston: Little Brown, 1881.
