75 So. 3d 308
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- McKesson provided 24/7 on-site and satellite pharmacy services to Mt. Sinai Medical Center under a Pharmaceutical Services Agreement, including locked cabinets in surgical suites and direct phone access from the surgical suites to the on-site pharmacy.
- In October 2003, Amanda Slavin underwent exploratory spinal surgery to repair a leak; methylene blue was retrieved from a surgical suite cabinet and administered during the procedure.
- Methylene blue is contraindicated for intraspinal injection; Slavin subsequently developed neurotoxic injury.
- Slavin sued Dr. Nanes, Mt. Sinai, and McKesson, alleging multiple negligence theories including a duty by McKesson to stock, train, and warn; a jury found Dr. Nanes negligent; the jury rejected McKesson’s duties regarding stocking and warnings but found a duty to train staff, for which Slavin was awarded damages apportioned as against McKesson.
- McKesson’s summary-judgment motion arguing no duty under the contract was denied; after trial, the final judgment credited McKesson with 14% of $38,323,196 in damages; on appeal, the sole dispositive issue is whether a duty to train exists under the contract, which the court ultimately resolves in McKesson’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a duty to train Mt. Sinai staff under the contract? | Slavin argues schedule 2.1F requires education on drug information and exceptions, including contraindications. | McKesson contends PM125 and PM201 do not obligate training on drug contraindications or surgery-specific information. | No; no contractual provision imposes such duty as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182 (Fla.2003) (duty analysis in negligence requires a recognized obligation to conform to a standard of care)
- Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So.3d 1087 (Fla.3d DCA 2011) (negligence elements and duty analysis context)
- Williams v. Davis, 974 So.2d 1052 (Fla.2007) (duty determined as law, focus on zone of risk)
- Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So.2d 1105 (Fla.2005) (duty source from general facts; statutory/regulatory not necessary)
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992) (duty as a question of law; foreseeability and zone of risk framework)