learned intermediary doctrine in Oklahoma

2010"It is the physician's duty to inform himself of the qualities and characteristics of those products which he administers or prescribes for use of his patients, and to exercise his judgment, based on his knowledge of the patient as well as the product." McKee v. Moore, 1982 OK 71, ¶ 8 , 648 P.2d 21, 24 . ¶ 19 The burden for plaintiffs is no different than in an ordinary negligence case when the learned intermediary doctrine is applied because the failure to give adequate warnings is what makes a product defective.

2010"It is the physician's duty to inform himself of the qualities and characteristics of those products which he administers or prescribes for use of his patients, and to exercise his judgment, based on his knowledge of the patient as well as the product." McKee v. Moore, 1982 OK 71, ¶ 8 , 648 P.2d 21, 24 . ¶ 19 The burden for plaintiffs is no different than in an ordinary negligence case when the learned intermediary doctrine is applied because the failure to give adequate warnings is what makes a product defective.

2026Edwards, 1997 OK 22 see also McKee v. Moore , 1982 OK 71 648 P.2d 21 Edwards states, the doctrine "shields manufacturers of prescription drugs from liability if the manufacturer adequately warns the prescribing physicians of the dangers of the drug." 1997 OK 22at Id . at ¶ 8 (citation omitted).

2010Edwards v. Basel Pharmaceuticals, 1997 OK 22 , 933 P.2d 298 .

2016Moore v. Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport , 825 So.2d 658, 665 (Miss. 2002)("An exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, as applied to pharmacists, exists where it was undisputed that a plaintiff had informed the pharmacy of health problems which contraindicated the use of the drug in question."); Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc ., 887 So. 2d 881 (Ala. 2004) (The learned-intermediary doctrine foreclosed any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician's prescription, valid and regular on its face, to warn the physician's patient, the pharmacist's customer, or any other ultimate consumer of the risks o

2016Moore v. Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport , 825 So.2d 658, 665 (Miss. 2002)("An exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, as applied to pharmacists, exists where it was undisputed that a plaintiff had informed the pharmacy of health problems which contraindicated the use of the drug in question."); Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc ., 887 So. 2d 881 (Ala. 2004) (The learned-intermediary doctrine foreclosed any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician's prescription, valid and regular on its face, to warn the physician's patient, the pharmacist's customer, or any other ultimate consumer of the risks o

2016Moore v. Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport, 825 So.2d 658, 665 (Miss. 2002) ("An exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, as applied to pharmacists, exists where it was undisputed that a plaintiff had informed the pharmacy of health problems which contraindicated the use of the drug in question.”): Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc., 887 So.2d 881 (Ala. 2004) (The learned-intermediary doctrine foreclosed any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician’s prescription, 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

2016Moore v. Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport, 825 So.2d 658, 665 (Miss. 2002) ("An exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, as applied to pharmacists, exists where it was undisputed that a plaintiff had informed the pharmacy of health problems which contraindicated the use of the drug in question.”): Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc., 887 So.2d 881 (Ala. 2004) (The learned-intermediary doctrine foreclosed any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician’s prescription, 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

2016Moore v. Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport, 825 So.2d 658, 665 (Miss. 2002) ("An exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, as applied to pharmacists, exists where it was undisputed that a plaintiff had informed the pharmacy of health problems which contraindicated the use of the drug in question.”): Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc., 887 So.2d 881 (Ala. 2004) (The learned-intermediary doctrine foreclosed any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician’s prescription, 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

2016Moore v. Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport, 825 So.2d 658, 665 (Miss. 2002) ("An exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, as applied to pharmacists, exists where it was undisputed that a plaintiff had informed the pharmacy of health problems which contraindicated the use of the drug in question.”): Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc., 887 So.2d 881 (Ala. 2004) (The learned-intermediary doctrine foreclosed any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician’s prescription, 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

2016Moore v. Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport , 825 So.2d 658, 665 (Miss. 2002)("An exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, as applied to pharmacists, exists where it was undisputed that a plaintiff had informed the pharmacy of health problems which contraindicated the use of the drug in question."); Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc ., 887 So. 2d 881 (Ala. 2004) (The learned-intermediary doctrine foreclosed any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician's prescription, valid and regular on its face, to warn the physician's patient, the pharmacist's customer, or any other ultimate consumer of the risks o

2016Moore v. Mem'l Hosp. of Gulfport , 825 So.2d 658, 665 (Miss. 2002)("An exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, as applied to pharmacists, exists where it was undisputed that a plaintiff had informed the pharmacy of health problems which contraindicated the use of the drug in question."); Walls v. Alpharma USPD, Inc ., 887 So. 2d 881 (Ala. 2004) (The learned-intermediary doctrine foreclosed any duty upon a pharmacist filling a physician's prescription, valid and regular on its face, to warn the physician's patient, the pharmacist's customer, or any other ultimate consumer of the risks o

2026"In the duty to warn context, assuming the plaintiffs have established both duty and a failure to warn, plaintiffs must further establish proximate causation by showing that had defendant issued a proper warning to the learned intermediary, he would have altered his behavior and the injury would have been avoided." Eck v. Parke, Davis & Co. , 256 F.3d 1013, 1018 (10 th Cir. 2001)(Okla.)(applying the learned intermediary doctrine adopted in Edwards .) ¶42 As Eck reasons, if Combs established that Magnevist was provided without a required warning, "a rebuttable presumption will arise that the co

2026"In the duty to warn context, assuming the plaintiffs have established both duty and a failure to warn, plaintiffs must further establish proximate causation by showing that had defendant issued a proper warning to the learned intermediary, he would have altered his behavior and the injury would have been avoided." Eck v. Parke, Davis & Co. , 256 F.3d 1013, 1018 (10 th Cir. 2001)(Okla.)(applying the learned intermediary doctrine adopted in Edwards .) ¶42 As Eck reasons, if Combs established that Magnevist was provided without a required warning, "a rebuttable presumption will arise that the co

2010Lindsay v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, 637 F.2d 87 (2nd Cir.1980).

2010Id. at 91 . [12] "The adequacy of warnings is determined by state law." Edwards, 1997 OK 22, ¶ 17 , 933 P.2d at 303 . *559 ¶ 20 IsoTis contended the warnings adequately warned Dr. Smith of the potential for an allergic reaction such as that experienced by Plaintiff.

2010The liability of the manufacturer and distributor is co-extensive, even though the distributor was not responsible for the presence of the defect." Braden v. Hendricks, 1985 OK 14, ¶ 12 , 695 P.2d 1343, 1350 . ¶ 18 The learned intermediary doctrine is an exception [11] to the manufacturer's duty to warn an ultimate consumer and shields a manufacturer from liability if it has adequately warned a prescribing physician of a danger which is the cause of the consumer's injury.

2010The liability of the manufacturer and distributor is co-extensive, even though the distributor was not responsible for the presence of the defect." Braden v. Hendricks, 1985 OK 14, ¶ 12 , 695 P.2d 1343, 1350 . ¶ 18 The learned intermediary doctrine is an exception [11] to the manufacturer's duty to warn an ultimate consumer and shields a manufacturer from liability if it has adequately warned a prescribing physician of a danger which is the cause of the consumer's injury.

2010Mercy also argued Appellants' "attempt to create sham facts" by their assertion of a new theory of liability in response to IsoTis's motion for summary judgment should be rejected, and it was entitled to judgment. ¶ 13 "When on motion for summary judgment it appears from pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories or other instruments properly before the Court that there are no genuine issues as to material facts or that admitted facts justify but a single inference therefrom, it is not error to grant summary judgment." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, ¶ 0 , 468 P.2d

2010Mercy also argued Appellants' "attempt to create sham facts" by their assertion of a new theory of liability in response to IsoTis's motion for summary judgment should be rejected, and it was entitled to judgment. ¶ 13 "When on motion for summary judgment it appears from pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories or other instruments properly before the Court that there are no genuine issues as to material facts or that admitted facts justify but a single inference therefrom, it is not error to grant summary judgment." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, ¶ 0 , 468 P.2d

1997Searle & Co, 705 F.Supp. at 1033 , the federal district court held that the FDA exception "undercuts if not abrogates the learned intermediary rule and should be narrowly construed." Likewise, in Lacy v. G.D.

1997Searle & Co, 705 F.Supp. at 1033 , the federal district court held that the FDA exception “undercuts if not abrogates the learned intermediary rule and should be narrowly construed.” Likewise, in Lacy v. G.D.

1997See also Bokis v. American Medical Systems, Inc. 875 F.Supp. 748 (W.D.Okla.1995)(Medical Device Act preempted state law claims.); Meyer v. International Playtex Inc., 724 F.Supp. 288 (D.N.J.1988)(Medical Device Act preempted state tort action for inadequate warning since FDA requirements were met). [4] See also Brochu v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 642 F.2d 652 (1st Cir.1981); McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 270 Or. 375 , 528 P.2d 522 (1974). [1] The learned intermediary rule "holds that manufacturers of prescription drugs discharge their duty of care to patients by warning the health-ca

1997MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131 , 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 , 106 S.Ct. 250 , 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich.1985); Spychala v. G.D.

1997MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131 , 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 , 106 S.Ct. 250 , 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich.1985); Spychala v. G.D.

1997Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 58 Ohio St.3d 147 , 569 N.E.2d 875 (1991).

1997Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 58 Ohio St.3d 147 , 569 N.E.2d 875 (1991).

1997See also Bokis v. American Medical Systems, Inc. 875 F.Supp. 748 (W.D.Okla.1995)(Medical Device Act preempted state law claims.); Meyer v. International Playtex Inc., 724 F.Supp. 288 (D.N.J.1988)(Medical Device Act preempted state tort action for inadequate warning since FDA requirements were met). [4] See also Brochu v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 642 F.2d 652 (1st Cir.1981); McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 270 Or. 375 , 528 P.2d 522 (1974). [1] The learned intermediary rule "holds that manufacturers of prescription drugs discharge their duty of care to patients by warning the health-ca

1997MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131 , 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 , 106 S.Ct. 250 , 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich.1985); Spychala v. G.D.

1997MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131 , 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 , 106 S.Ct. 250 , 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich.1985); Spychala v. G.D.

1997MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131 , 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 , 106 S.Ct. 250 , 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich.1985); Spychala v. G.D.

1997MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131 , 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 , 106 S.Ct. 250 , 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich.1985); Spychala v. G.D.

1997MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131 , 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 , 106 S.Ct. 250 , 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich.1985); Spychala v. G.D.

1997MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131 , 475 N.E.2d 65 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920 , 106 S.Ct. 250 , 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich.1985); Spychala v. G.D.