This case deals with implications of the Texas statute creating a duty for pharmacists to counsel patients. The Texas law, as with those in most other states, was passed in the wake of federal legislation on counseling. Pharmacists lobbied for these laws to try to establish a professional identify as being expert in the clinical use of drugs, rather than being relegated to their traditional role of preparing and packaging drugs on physician's orders. Most legal commentators predicted that this law would have the unintended consequence of increasing pharmacists' liability by explicitly creating a duty to counsel and warn patients of the risks of drugs. The cases arising under these counseling laws are now being tried and reviewed by appeals courts. This case has been reported in the news media as holding that a pharmacist has no duty to warn of side effects of drugs. While the plaintiff did lose on appeal, the holding of the case is more complex and should give less comfort to pharmacists.
Plaintiff's decedent was 12 years old when a physician
started him on Desipramine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The prescription was filled at Wal-Mart and the pharmacist did not warn the
parents about any risks of the drug. After about 2 years on the drug,
the child died of hypereosinophilic syndrome, which was attributed to an idiosyncratic
effect of the drug. During the period he was using the drug he has several
bouts of illness and none of the physician's inquired as to the underlying cause
of his problems, so there were several defendants in the case. After some
defendants settled, the case went to trial on a theory of negligence per se,
i.e., that the state law required the pharmacist to warn the patient's parents
that the drug was not recommend for children and that it had potentially serious
side-effects. The jury found Wal-Mart liable under this theory and awarded
in excess of $600,000 in damages against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart appealed,
arguing that the statute did not create a strict duty to warn and that in the
absence of this statutory duty to warn, there was insufficient standard of care
testimony to establish that the defendant's conduct fell below that of a reasonably
The appeals court's reasoning was driven by deference to
the physician patient relationship and the rationale that requiring pharmacists
to warn patients about the risks of drugs, beyond the applicable professional
standards, would interfere with the physician patient relationship. The
court reviews a substantial body of cases to this effect. It is notable
that they arose before the current pressures on the physician patient relationship
from managed care, and the court was silent on continuing validity of the assumption
that the physician patient relationship is sacred and that perhaps the pharmacist
could help protect the patient from poor decisionmaking by physicians.
The court then examined the Texas law creating a duty to counsel. It found
that while there might be a statutory duty to counsel, that duty did not include
any specific components, such as warning about adverse side-effects of drugs.
The court essentially found that the statute did nothing more than codify the
requirement that a pharmacist do what reasonable pharmacists do, nothing that
the statute and regulations were couched in terms of behaving reasonably, rather
than delineating specific tasks that had to be performed. The court saw
the duty of a reasonable pharmacist, absent special factors identified by expert
testimony, as controlled by the learned intermediary, i.e., the physician is
the who must warn: "Nonetheless, in light of the learned intermediary doctrine,
which we find applicable to the relationship among physician, patient, and pharmacist,
we hold that pharmacists have no generalized duty to warn patients of potential
adverse reactions to prescription drugs absent some special circumstances not
The problem for the plaintiff is that plaintiff's expert
did not provide adequate testimony of the necessary special factors to support
a verdict of common law negligence. The expert even questioned whether
a 12-14 year old was a child for the purposed of the label recommendations against
given the drug to a child. Based on this lack of evidence, the court reversed
and entered judgment for Wal-Mart, rather than remanding. This case, if
it stands further appeal, reduces the liability of pharmacists in Texas.
Politically, however, it may be a setback to the push by pharmacists to be given
more extensive authority to recommend drugs and even to do medical management
of patients because, under this court's analysis, such powers would clearly
be the unauthorized practice of medicine.
The Climate Change and Public Health Law Site
The Best on the WWW Since 1995!
Copyright as to non-public domain materials
See DR-KATE.COM for home hurricane and disaster preparation
See WWW.EPR-ART.COM for photography of southern Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina
Professor Edward P. Richards, III, JD, MPH - Webmaster
Provide Website Feedback - https://www.lsu.edu/feedback
Accessibility Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/accessibility