Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation
239 Ariz. 19
| Ariz. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Amanda Watts took prescription Solodyn (minocycline) for two 20-week courses and later developed drug‑induced lupus and hepatitis, alleging long‑term use caused her injuries.
- Watts received a MediSAVE card (stating safety beyond 12 weeks "has not been studied") and a pharmacist insert advising to consult a doctor if no improvement in 12 weeks; she did not receive the full prescribing information that warned of autoimmune risks.
- Watts sued Medicis for product liability (inadequate warnings) and Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) violations (misrepresentations/omissions in marketing materials), seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The superior court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6); the court of appeals reversed, holding the learned intermediary doctrine (LID) conflicted with Arizona’s Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA).
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether the LID applies to prescription drugs, (2) whether UCATA displaces the LID, (3) whether prescription drugs are "merchandise" under the CFA and a direct merchant‑consumer transaction is required, and (4) adequacy of pleading on the failure‑to‑warn claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the learned intermediary doctrine (LID) generally apply to prescription drugs? | Watts urged limiting or rejecting LID (and urged a DTC advertising exception). | Medicis argued LID applies and bars liability when physicians are adequately warned. | Adopted Third Restatement §6(d); LID generally applies to prescription drugs, with exceptions. |
| Does UCATA displace or render incompatible the LID? | Watts/court of appeals: UCATA’s comparative‑fault scheme makes LID untenable and preempts it. | Medicis: UCATA allocates fault but does not define duties; LID concerns duty to warn. | UCATA does not displace LID; doctrines address different questions (duty vs. apportionment). |
| Are prescription drugs "merchandise" under the CFA and is a direct merchant‑consumer transaction required? | Watts: CFA applies to drug marketing; MediSAVE card and materials support claim. | Medicis: Drugs are not "merchandise" and CFA requires direct merchant‑consumer sale/advertisement. | Prescription drugs are "merchandise"; CFA does not require direct merchant‑consumer transaction; Watts stated an actionable CFA claim. |
| Did Watts plead a viable product‑liability failure‑to‑warn claim? | Watts alleged Medicis failed to adequately warn about long‑term risks and attached prescribing materials. | Medicis argued warnings to physician might have been adequate and LID could bar the claim. | Complaint ambiguously pleaded who received warnings; dismissal vacated and case remanded—if Medicis can show undisputed adequate warnings to providers, LID would bar liability as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyer v. Best Pharmacal, 118 Ariz. 465, 577 P.2d 1084 (court of appeals 1978) (early Arizona adoption of the learned intermediary doctrine)
- Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton, 372 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. 2012) (defended continued viability and policy rationale for LID)
- Perez v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 734 A.2d 1245 (N.J. 1999) (New Jersey decision creating a DTC advertising exception to LID)
- Dole Food Co. v. N.C. Foam Indus., Inc., 188 Ariz. 298, 935 P.2d 876 (App. 1996) (discussed LID as a duty‑based inquiry)
- Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 182 Ariz. 26, 893 P.2d 26 (App. 1994) (applied LID to determine whether manufacturer satisfied duty to warn)
- State Farm Ins. Co. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 217 Ariz. 222, 172 P.3d 410 (2007) (explained Arizona comparative fault and limits on joint/several liability)
- Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc., 153 S.W.3d 758 (Ky. 2004) (adopted Third Restatement formulation of LID)