2015 IL App (1st) 142990
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Decedent Gilbert C. Hernandez was treated for chronic back pain by Dr. Preston from 2006 to 2010 and was prescribed methadone starting at least August 2008.
- Decedent filled methadone prescriptions at Walgreen and Osco pharmacies until his death on March 5, 2010 from methadone intoxication.
- Plaintiff Anthony Hernandez, as special administrator, filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Preston and Preston Health Partners, P.C., which is not at issue here, and later added Walgreen and Osco with wrongful death claims.
- The amended complaints alleged the pharmacies dispensed methadone in excessive quantities or inappropriate time frames and failed to monitor or warn to prevent injury or death.
- Osco and Walgreen moved for summary judgment arguing there was no legally recognized duty for pharmacies to monitor prescriptions or warn; the trial court granted summary judgment in their favor.
- Plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court held under Rule 304(a) that the order granting summary judgment was appealable and conducted de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pharmacies owe a duty to monitor prescription history for excess use | Hernandez asserts a duty to monitor and warn based on prescription data. | Walgreen and Osco argue no duty to monitor or warn, guided by Eldridge/Fakhouri and learned intermediary doctrine. | No duty to monitor or warn; affirmed. |
| Whether the Illinois Prescription Monitoring Program creates a duty for pharmacies | Act provisions show pharmacies can access data and should monitor to prevent abuse. | Act does not require monitoring nor impose duty to warn; sections 316-318 permit but do not require access. | Act does not impose a duty to monitor or warn; affirmed. |
| Whether Happel creates a duty to warn that overrides Eldridge and Fakhouri | Happel supports a pharmacist duty to warn in some upstream information contexts. | Happel is distinguishable and does not justify imposing a monitoring duty in this context. | Happel not controlling here; no duty to monitor or warn. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldridge v. Eli Lilly & Co., 138 Ill. App. 3d 124 (1985) (no duty to warn physician for excessive quantities; learned intermediary doctrine preserved)
- Fakhouri v. Taylor, 248 Ill. App. 3d 328 (1993) (pharmacist not liable to warn or monitor overdoses; reinforces doctor-patient boundary)
- Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 179 (2002) (narrow duty to warn for known contraindications; escola ruling on pharmacist warning duties)
- Frye v. Medicare-Glaser Corp., 153 Ill. 2d 26 (1992) (consumers rely on prescribing physician for warnings; pharmacist not obliged to assume duty)