Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Product Liability Law & StrategyKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Improperly Attempting to Circumvent the Learned Intermediary Doctrine: Challenging the Adequacy of Warnings to Physicians

By Lori Cohen and Jenifer Keenan
July 27, 2005

The learned intermediary doctrine is one of the most important doctrines for medical device and pharmaceutical drug defendants in product liability cases because under the doctrine, they are often able to obtain summary judgment on failure to warn claims. (The learned intermediary doctrine has been adopted and recognized in at least 45 states. See Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., 153 S.W.3d 758, 767 (Ky. 2005).) The learned intermediary doctrine provides that a manufacturer, designer or distributor of a medical device or pharmaceutical drug does not have a duty to directly warn patients of possible dangers associated with the use of the device or drug. See Presto v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 487 S.E.2d 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). Rather, “'a warning as to possible danger in its use to the prescribing physician is sufficient.'” Id. at 73. As noted in Restatement (Third) of Torts:

The rationale supporting this 'learned intermediary' rule is that only health-care professionals are in a position to understand the significance of the risks involved and to assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of a given form of prescription-based therapy. The duty then devolves on the health-care provider to supply to the patient such information as is deemed appropriate under the circumstances so that the patient can make an informed choice as to therapy. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. '6 cmt. b.

In addition, courts throughout the country have noted that the learned intermediary doctrine is a sound and rational doctrine because: 1) “manufacturers lack effective means to communicate directly with each patient” and 2) “imposing a duty to warn upon the manufacturer would unduly interfere with the physician-patient relationship.” Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., 153 S.W.3d 758, 764 (Ky. 2005). Consistent with these policies, courts have found that the learned intermediary doctrine applies not only to pharmaceutical drugs, but to medical devices as well, because medical devices are available only upon “prescription, application (insertion) and supervision of a physician.” Lance v. Am. Edwards Labs., 452 S.E.2d 185, 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). See also Cather v. Catheter Tech. Corp., 753 F. Supp. 634, 640 (S.D. Miss. 1991).

Plaintiffs often attempt to circumvent the learned intermediary doctrine and defeat summary judgment on failure to warn claims by arguing that there is an issue of fact as to whether the warning the pharmaceutical or medical device defendant provided physicians was “adequate.” Courts, however, have consistently rejected such attempts and have held that defendants' warnings to physicians may be declared adequate as a matter of law.

Warnings Mentioning the Risk Complained of Are Adequate As a Matter of Law

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?