CARISTA v. VALUCK
2016 OK CIV APP 66
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Decedent died from a reported overdose of prescribed painkillers; his sister Diane Carista sued multiple defendants, including Westminster Family Drug (Pharmacy), for wrongful death.
- Carista's petition alleged a health care provider–patient relationship with Pharmacy and accused Pharmacy of multiple failures (e.g., not reviewing prescription history, failing to warn of dangerous drug combinations, not considering patient’s history of substance abuse, and inadequate supervision/credentialing).
- Pharmacy moved to dismiss under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6), arguing no statutory or common-law duty exists as alleged; the trial court dismissed Pharmacy with prejudice.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo whether Carista’s petition sufficiently alleged a legal duty owed by Pharmacy — duty is a threshold legal question in negligence cases.
- The majority held Carista’s existing petition failed to state a cognizable claim but concluded the learned-intermediary doctrine and applicable Oklahoma law do not provide absolute immunity; plaintiff should be allowed to amend her petition to attempt to plead a recognized pharmacist duty.
- The Court vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to permit Carista a reasonable time to amend under 12 O.S. § 2012(G).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pharmacist owes a tort duty to monitor, warn, or second-guess prescribed medications | Carista: Pharmacy had provider–patient relationship and statutory/regulatory duties (Pharmacy Act, OAC, DEA manual) to evaluate prescriptions, counsel, and address addiction risk | Pharmacy: Oklahoma law and learned-intermediary doctrine limit pharmacists’ duties; no recognized duty to do more than fill/dispense and limited counseling; no duty here | Court: Petition insufficient as pled; learned-intermediary doctrine limits pharmacist duty but is not absolute; plaintiff given leave to amend to plead facts fitting recognized exceptions |
| Whether regulatory provisions (Pharmacy Act, OAC) create a private tort duty | Carista: Definitions and OAC rules establish duties that support negligence claim | Pharmacy: Those statutory/regulatory provisions define regulated activities and professional standards, not independent tort duties | Court: Rejected novel use of definitions/regulations to create a broad new tort duty; statutes/regulations primarily define regulatory scope, not automatic tort liability |
| Whether extrinsic materials (DEA Pharmacists Manual; unsworn expert report) can defeat a dismissal motion | Carista: Cited DEA manual and submitted a Pharm.D. report to show standards and breach | Pharmacy: Dismissal record should be limited to petition; materials are outside pleading and irrelevant to B(6) review | Court: Declined to rely on unpublished DEA manual or unsworn report; treated dismissal as B(6) (not summary judgment) and excluded extrinsic evidence |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice | Pharmacy: Sought dismissal on the merits | Carista: Asked implicitly for leave to amend via appellate relief | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was improper; vacated and remanded with instruction to dismiss with leave to amend and a reasonable time to do so under § 2012(G) |
Key Cases Cited
- McKee v. Moore, 648 P.2d 21 (Okla. 1982) (articulates the learned-intermediary doctrine as between drug manufacturers and physicians)
- Pharmcare Oklahoma, Inc. v. State Health Care Auth., 152 P.3d 267 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (describes pharmacist duties as defined and limited by the Pharmacy Act)
- Tuffy's, Inc. v. City of Okla. City, 212 P.3d 1158 (Okla. 2009) (standard for de novo review of motion to dismiss; pleadings must be construed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Okla. City, 336 P.3d 457 (Okla. 2014) (reiterates that duty is a threshold question of law in negligence cases)