Oleckna v. Daytona Discount Pharmacy
162 So. 3d 178
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Steven Porter, treated by Dr. Owen Hunt, was prescribed Xanax and analgesics over two years before his death in March 2011.
- Oleckna alleges Pharmacy filled at least thirty prescriptions written by Hunt, in close temporal proximity, without apparent consideration of overlap or risk.
- Oleckna asserts Pharmacy owed Porter a duty of care in dispensing prescriptions, beyond mere fulfillment of physician orders.
- The trial court dismissed Oleckna's amended complaint with prejudice, citing McLeod and Sharp to limit the duty of a pharmacist.
- The appellate court reverses, holding that a pharmacist can owe a broader duty to exercise due care when prescriptions are unreasonable on their face or in context.
- The court remands for further proceedings to determine whether Oleckna’s claims can survive summary judgment or trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a pharmacist owe a duty to exercise due care beyond following a physician's directions? | Oleckna argues duty extends beyond routine filling. | Pharmacy relies on McLeod; no duty beyond proper dispensing. | Yes; duty extends beyond mere compliance. |
| Are the allegations sufficient to state a negligent-filling claim when prescriptions are too close in time or excessive? | Allegations show repeated, closely spaced prescriptions indicating lack of due care. | All prescriptions were issued by a physician and properly dispensed per instructions. | Allegations raise potential liability; not barred as a matter of law. |
| Is Estate of Sharp controlling on this case? | Estate of Sharp does not control because facts differ; pharmacist directly interacted with Porter. | Estate of Sharp supports limiting pharmacist duty. | No; Powers controls and Estate of Sharp does not foreclose duty here. |
| Should the case have been dismissed at pleading stage given McLeod framework? | Powers and Dee support a viable negligence claim at pleading. | McLeod grounds dismissal; insufficient factual basis. | Dismissal reversed; facts allege actionable duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLeod v. W.S. Merrell Co., Division of Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 174 So.2d 736 (Fla.1965) (pharmacist's duty may extend beyond mere warranty to negligent filling)
- Dee v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 878 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (unreasonable on its face prescriptions can create duty to warn)
- Powers v. Thobhani, 903 So.2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (pharmacists may be liable for failing to use due care despite prescription)
- Estate of Sharp v. Omnicare, Inc., 879 So.2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (consultant pharmacist not liable for patient harm from physician prescriptions)
- Your Druggist, Inc. v. Powers, 934 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2006) (recognizes duties beyond following physician's directions in some contexts)
- Badger Acquisition, 983 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (pharmacists' duties in regulatory context inform standard of care)