KLASCH v. Walgreen Co.
264 P.3d 1155
Nev.2011Background
- Klasch visited a doctor in Dec 2005 with potential sulfa allergy noted on her chart; sulfa allergy recorded with a question mark.
- In July 2006, she was prescribed Bactrim (sulfa-based) for a urinary tract infection after the doctor questioned the allergy note.
- Walgreens pharmacist overrode a computer flag indicating a sulfa allergy and released the prescription to the caretaker.
- Klasch later developed SJS/TEN, deteriorated, and died; the family sued Walgreens for wrongful death alleging breach of duty to warn or involve the doctor.
- Walgreens moved for summary judgment arguing the pharmacist’s duty was only to fill the prescription correctly and that learned-intermediary doctrine insulated it from warning duties.
- The district court granted summary judgment, prompting this appeal to determine the proper scope of the pharmacist’s duty and the doctrine’s applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the learned-intermediary doctrine applies to pharmacist duties to warn. | Klasches argue doctrine shields pharmacists from warning duties. | Walgreens argues doctrine bars any warning duties beyond filling the prescription correctly. | Learned-intermediary doctrine adopted; no duty to warn generalized risks. |
| Whether a pharmacist with knowledge of a customer-specific risk must warn or notify the doctor. | Walgreens had customer-specific risk (sulfa allergy) knowledge and failed to warn/notify. | Walgreens contends duties are limited to dispensing correctly and the doctor retains control. | No, there is a duty to warn the customer or notify the prescriber when customer-specific risk is known. |
| Whether factual issues on breach and causation preclude summary judgment. | Breach and causation questions remain; expert depositions incomplete. | Record shows lack of duty and breach; causation should be resolved. | Factual issues remain; summary judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 179 (Ill. 2002) (customer-specific risk may create a duty to warn)
- Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2011) (pharmacists may warn when customer-specific factors exist)
- Schaerrer v. Stewart's Plaza Pharmacy, Inc., 79 P.3d 922 (Utah 2003) (learned intermediary rule with pharmacist knowledge limits liability)
- Downing v. Hyland Pharmacy, 194 P.3d 944 (Utah 2008) (limits on application of learned intermediary doctrine in negligence)
- Thorn v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 353 F.3d 848 (10th Cir. 2003) (learned intermediary doctrine in product liability context)
- McKee v. American Home Products, Corp., 113 Wash.2d 701 (Wash. 1989) (physician as learned intermediary; pharmacist duties constrained)
- Happel, 262 Ill. Dec. 815, 766 N.E.2d 1118, Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Ill. 2002) (narrow duty to warn where patient-specific risk and contraindication)