learned intermediary doctrine in Illinois

2026Pharmaceutical companies then, who must warn ultimate purchasers of dangers inherent in patent drugs sold over the counter, in selling prescription drugs are required to warn only the prescribing physician, who acts as a ‘learned 40 intermediary’ between manufacturer and consumer.” ’ ” Kirk, 117 Ill. 2d at 518 (quoting Stone v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, 731 F.2d 1575, 1579-80 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, 498 F.2d 1264, 1276 (5th Cir. 1974)). ¶ 134 The learned intermediary doctrine later was extended to apply to medical device manufacturers.

2020As the parties have mutually treated Johnson & Johnson as the device’s manufacturer for purposes of its section 2-615 motion to dismiss, we assume without deciding that Johnson & Johnson is the manufacturer for purposes of resolving this appeal. ¶ 17 The learned intermediary doctrine has been adopted in 48 states, including Illinois (see Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 515 (1987); Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 1000 (7th Cir. 2011))—Rhode Island and Vermont appear to have no precedent, state or federal, addressing the issue.

2026Although Mead Johnson did request a special interrogatory regarding the design‑defect and strict liability 5 The information regarding frequency of occurrence and death is provided by AAP and ICAAP’s amici curiae brief, citing the 2024 Report of the Working Group to the Secretary of Health & Human Services and the AAP 2023 Clinical Report. 34 failure‑to‑warn theories, Mother argues it did not request a special interrogatory regarding her four distinct theories of negligence. ¶ 117 “The learned intermediary doctrine, a rule of common law origin, is an exception to the general rule that a failur

2019Martin by Martin v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. , 169 Ill. 2d 234 , 238-39, 214 Ill.Dec. 498 , 661 N.E.2d 352 (1996).

2011See Kasin v. Osco Drug, Inc., 312 Ill.App.3d 823 , 245 Ill.Dec. 346 , 728 N.E.2d 77 (2000) (pharmacist lost the protection of the learned intermediary doctrine by voluntarily warning of some but not all side effects). ¶ 29 The defendants respond that the duty to warn of the side effects of medication based on a voluntary undertaking may not be imposed on a drug manufacturer because it would interfere with the physician-patient relationship if the drug manufacturer was held to have assumed that duty in place of the physician.

2011See Kasin v. Osco Drug, Inc., 312 Ill.App.3d 823 , 245 Ill.Dec. 346 , 728 N.E.2d 77 (2000) (pharmacist lost the protection of the learned intermediary doctrine by voluntarily warning of some but not all side effects). ¶ 29 The defendants respond that the duty to warn of the side effects of medication based on a voluntary undertaking may not be imposed on a drug manufacturer because it would interfere with the physician-patient relationship if the drug manufacturer was held to have assumed that duty in place of the physician.

2019Fakhouri v. Taylor , 248 Ill.

2019Happel , 199 Ill. 2d at 193 , 262 Ill.Dec. 815 , 766 N.E.2d 1118 . ¶ 28 Our courts have already made clear that pharmacies do not have a duty to determine whether a prescription is "excessive" (see, e.g. , Fakhouri , 248 Ill.

2006The learned intermediary doctrine was considered by this court in relation to a medical device manufacturer in Hansen v. Baxter Heathcare Corp., 309 Ill.

2006The learned intermediary doctrine was considered by this court in relation to a medical device manufacturer in Hansen v. Baxter Heathcare Corp., 309 Ill.

2019See Eldridge, 138 Ill.

2019See Eldridge , 138 Ill.

2019See Hernandez v. Schering Corp., 2011 IL App (1st) 093306, ¶ 30 .

2019See Hernandez v. Schering Corp. , 2011 IL App (1st) 093306 , ¶ 30, 354 Ill.Dec. 704 , 958 N.E.2d 447 .

2019The learned intermediary doctrine applies to pharmacists in the same way that it does drug manufacturers-the duty to warn of side effects is not placed on the pharmacist, it is placed on the prescribing physician. *478 *566 Leesley v. West , 165 Ill.

2019App. 3d 135 , 143, 116 Ill.Dec. 136 , 518 N.E.2d 758 (1988) (quoting Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center , 117 Ill. 2d 507 , 524, 111 Ill.Dec. 944 , 513 N.E.2d 387 (1987) ). ¶ 14 A pharmacist owes just a duty of ordinary care in practicing his profession.

2022“The underlying rationale of the learned intermediary doctrine is that, with regard to prescription drugs, which are likely to be complex medicines, it is the prescribing physician who knows both the propensities of the drug and the susceptibilities of his patient, and who therefore is in the best position to prescribe a particular drug for the patient.” Happel, 199 Ill. 2d at 191 . - 16 - 2022 IL App (2d) 220042-U ¶ 54 The learned intermediary doctrine generally extends to pharmacists.

2015Instead, Wal-Mart need only pass along to the customer or the physician the information it already possesses about the contraindication for this specific customer." (Emphasis added.) Id. ¶ 36 Our supreme court noted that Wal-Mart, relying on precedent including Eldridge and Fakhouri, had "contend[ed] that the learned intermediary doctrine precludes the imposition of a duty to warn here." Id. at 192-93 .

1987Ill. 1985), 602 F. Supp. 399, 402 .) As such, we believe the learned intermediary doctrine is applicable here and that there is no duty on the part of manufacturers of prescription drugs to directly warn patients.

1987Ill. 1985), 602 F. Supp. 399, 402 .) As such, we believe the learned intermediary doctrine is applicable here and that there is no duty on the part of manufacturers of prescription drugs to directly warn patients.

2026Pharmaceutical companies then, who must warn ultimate purchasers of dangers inherent in patent drugs sold over the counter, in selling prescription drugs are required to warn only the prescribing physician, who acts as a ‘learned 40 intermediary’ between manufacturer and consumer.” ’ ” Kirk, 117 Ill. 2d at 518 (quoting Stone v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, 731 F.2d 1575, 1579-80 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, 498 F.2d 1264, 1276 (5th Cir. 1974)). ¶ 134 The learned intermediary doctrine later was extended to apply to medical device manufacturers.

1988Kirk, 117 Ill. 2d at 518 , citing Stone, 731 F.2d 1575 .

2011The court found that imposing a duty to warn “would not have intruded Wal-Mart into the doctor-patient relationship, forcing it to ‘practice medicine without a license.’ [Citation.] We agree with the appellate court below that ‘[t]his is not a case in which the plaintiff is asking the pharmacist to exercise any modicum of medical judgment or to interject himself into the doctor-patient relationship.’ ” Happel, 199 Ill. 2d at 194 -95 (quoting Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 316 Ill.

2011The court found that imposing a duty to warn "would not have intruded Wal-Mart into the doctor-patient relationship, forcing it to `practice medicine without a license.' [Citation.] We agree with the appellate court below that `[t]his is not a case in which the plaintiff is asking the pharmacist to exercise any modicum of medical judgment or to interject himself into the doctor-patient relationship.'" Happel, 199 Ill.2d at 194-95 , 262 Ill.Dec. 815 , 766 N.E.2d 1118 (quoting Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 316 Ill.

2026App. 3d 977, 988 (1995). ¶ 143 Illinois courts have consistently held that jury instructions must “fairly, fully, and comprehensively” apprise jurors of the law governing the case and that reversal is required where an instruction “clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice.” Martin v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 221116, ¶ 18 . “ ‘When a case is tried under an incorrect theory of law the appropriate action is to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.’ ” Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 IL 111871, ¶ 46 (quoting Sparling v. Peabody Coal Co., 59 Ill. 2d 491,

2026App. 3d 977, 988 (1995). ¶ 143 Illinois courts have consistently held that jury instructions must “fairly, fully, and comprehensively” apprise jurors of the law governing the case and that reversal is required where an instruction “clearly misled the jury and resulted in prejudice.” Martin v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 221116, ¶ 18 . “ ‘When a case is tried under an incorrect theory of law the appropriate action is to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.’ ” Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 IL 111871, ¶ 46 (quoting Sparling v. Peabody Coal Co., 59 Ill. 2d 491,

2026Pharmaceutical companies then, who must warn ultimate purchasers of dangers inherent in patent drugs sold over the counter, in selling prescription drugs are required to warn only the prescribing physician, who acts as a ‘learned 40 intermediary’ between manufacturer and consumer.” ’ ” Kirk, 117 Ill. 2d at 518 (quoting Stone v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, 731 F.2d 1575, 1579-80 (11th Cir. 1984), quoting Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, 498 F.2d 1264, 1276 (5th Cir. 1974)). ¶ 134 The learned intermediary doctrine later was extended to apply to medical device manufacturers.

2026Although Mead Johnson did request a special interrogatory regarding the design‑defect and strict liability 5 The information regarding frequency of occurrence and death is provided by AAP and ICAAP’s amici curiae brief, citing the 2024 Report of the Working Group to the Secretary of Health & Human Services and the AAP 2023 Clinical Report. 34 failure‑to‑warn theories, Mother argues it did not request a special interrogatory regarding her four distinct theories of negligence. ¶ 117 “The learned intermediary doctrine, a rule of common law origin, is an exception to the general rule that a failur

2020As the parties have mutually treated Johnson & Johnson as the device’s manufacturer for purposes of its section 2-615 motion to dismiss, we assume without deciding that Johnson & Johnson is the manufacturer for purposes of resolving this appeal. ¶ 17 The learned intermediary doctrine has been adopted in 48 states, including Illinois (see Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 515 (1987); Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 1000 (7th Cir. 2011))—Rhode Island and Vermont appear to have no precedent, state or federal, addressing the issue.

2020As the parties have mutually treated Johnson & Johnson as the device’s manufacturer for purposes of its section 2-615 motion to dismiss, we assume without deciding that Johnson & Johnson is the manufacturer for purposes of resolving this appeal. ¶ 17 The learned intermediary doctrine has been adopted in 48 states, including Illinois (see Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507, 515 (1987); Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 1000 (7th Cir. 2011))—Rhode Island and Vermont appear to have no precedent, state or federal, addressing the issue.

2020In support of their position, Johnson & Johnson relied on Kennedy v. Medtronic, Inc., 366 Ill.

2020Correspondingly, where a manufacturer never gives adequate warning to a physician, “the learned intermediary doctrine is, if for no other reason, inapplicable.” Id. ¶ 20 Furthermore, we find Johnson & Johnson’s reliance on Kennedy v. Medtronic, Inc., 366 Ill.

2019See Hernandez v. Schering Corp. , 2011 IL App (1st) 093306 , ¶ 30, 354 Ill.Dec. 704 , 958 N.E.2d 447 .

2019See Hernandez v. Schering Corp. , 2011 IL App (1st) 093306 , ¶ 30, 354 Ill.Dec. 704 , 958 N.E.2d 447 .

2006Bajwa v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 208 Ill. 2d 414, 422 (2004). -8- 1-04-1621 In Kirk, cited by Medtronic, the learned intermediary doctrine was adopted by our supreme court.

2001See also Pluto v. Searle Laboratories, 294 Ill.App.3d 393, 396 , 228 Ill.Dec. 860 , 690 N.E.2d 619 (1997) (the learned intermediary doctrine, when applied, limits the prescription device manufacturer's duty to warn to physicians).

2001See also Pluto v. Searle Laboratories, 294 Ill.App.3d 393, 396 , 228 Ill.Dec. 860 , 690 N.E.2d 619 (1997) (the learned intermediary doctrine, when applied, limits the prescription device manufacturer's duty to warn to physicians).