Kolozsvari v. Doe
943 N.E.2d 823
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Christine, with ulcerative colitis, was prescribed OsmoPrep for a colonoscopy by Dr. Doe; CVS filled the prescription at Branchfield’s direction.
- CVS computer warnings flagged renal risk due to Christine’s age and the high OsmoPrep dose, but Branchfield did not relay the warnings to Christine.
- Christine had a history of Lisinopril use; CVS’s records reflected this, and OsmoPrep’s monograph warned about potential interactions.
- A subsequent OsmoPrep dose triggered another warning about safety in short-term high-dose use, which Branchfield again did not convey.
- Christine informed a CVS technician of tingling sensations potentially related to OsmoPrep, and Branchfield stated OsmoPrep did not cause tingling.
- Christine developed acute kidney failure from phosphate nephropathy, required dialysis for life, and later filed suit against CVS, Branchfield, and others; summary judgment for CVS/Branchfield was granted and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pharmacist duty to warn or withhold exists | Kolozsvaris assert CVS/Branchfield owed a duty to warn or withhold under statute and regulation. | CVS/Branchfield contend no duty to warn or withhold beyond standard prescription filling. | Yes; court held there is a duty to warn or withhold under Indiana law. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Hooks SuperX, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. 1994) (pharmacist duty to withhold/refill controls due to patient risk and prescription history)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind.2004) (summary judgment ill-suited for negligence; fact-sensitive)
- Miller v. Griesel, 261 Ind. 604, 308 N.E.2d 701 (Ind.1974) (elements of negligence)
- Hooks SuperX, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 642 N.E.2d 514 (Ind.1994) (pharmacist duties arising from prescription history and safety)