Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Learned Intermediary Doctrine: Uniformity at Last?
State and federal courts have long faced the difficulty of adapting purchaser-focused product liability doctrines to the pharmaceutical and medical device areas, where physicians mediate the interaction between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer, the patient. First articulated in 1948 in Marcus v. Specific Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 77 N.Y.S.2d 508 (App. Div. 1948), the learned intermediary doctrine addresses this dilemma by providing that manufacturers of prescription medicines need warn only physicians of the relevant risks associated with their products. Manufacturers are not required to give warnings directly to patients. Premised on the principle that a prescribing physician stands in the best position to evaluate a patient's medical history and assess the risks and benefits of a particular treatment, this rule embraces the FDA's determination that medical products available only by prescription have inherent and unavoidable risks requiring a physician's approval prior to use.
At the turn of 2016, 35 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the learned intermediary doctrine in the pharmaceutical context, either through legislation or their highest court. See Centocor Inc. v. Hamilton, 372 S.W.3d 140, 158 n.17 (Tex. 2012); see also Br. of Amicus Curiae Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. in Supp. of Pet. for Review, Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton, No. 10-0223, at App'x A (Tex. May 20, 2010). The majority of the remaining states either applied the rule in the lower courts or remained silent on the issue, leaving federal courts to predict that the doctrine would be applied through an Erie analysis. See, e.g., Greaves v. Eli Lilly & Co., 503 F. Appx. 70, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2012).
Only two states ' Arizona and West Virginia ' rejected the learned intermediary doctrine outright: West Virginia in a 2007 ruling by the state's highest court and Arizona in a surprising 2015 intermediate appellate decision. The past few months, however, have brought developments in both of those states that suggest the learned intermediary doctrine will be uniformly adopted across the country.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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?
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
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?