Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.
236 Ariz. 511
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Amanda Watts (minor when first treated) was prescribed Solodyn (minocycline) and used it in two 20-week courses; she later developed drug-induced lupus and hepatitis allegedly caused by the drug.
- Watts received a MediSAVE savings card and a pharmacy insert that stated safety of use beyond 12 weeks was "not known," but she did not receive FDA patient labeling; the full prescribing information warned of autoimmune syndromes with long-term minocycline use.
- Watts sued Medicis (manufacturer) asserting consumer fraud (Arizona Consumer Fraud Act), product liability (failure to warn), and punitive damages; Medicis moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Trial court granted dismissal and denied Watts’s Rule 59 motion; Watts appealed, raising jurisdictional challenges (timeliness and scope of notice) and on the merits argued CFA liability and that the learned intermediary doctrine should not bar her product-liability claim.
- The Court of Appeals concluded Watts’s Rule 59 motion timely extended appeal, her notice of appeal was sufficient, vacated the dismissal, held CFA covers prescription drug advertising, and found the learned intermediary doctrine incompatible with Arizona’s UCATA-based comparative fault scheme; punitive damages remanded for further factual development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal (effect of Rule 59 motion) | Rule 59 motion extended appeal period; timely appeal | Rule 59 does not apply to 12(b)(6) dismissal so appeal untimely | Motion for new trial under Rule 59(a) can extend appeal time after dismissal; appeal timely |
| Scope of notice of appeal | Notice referencing denial of Rule 59 and "final Ruling" encompasses underlying dismissal | Notice only referenced denial of new trial, so appeal limited to that motion | Notice was sufficient; appellee not prejudiced; appellate jurisdiction includes underlying dismissal |
| Applicability of Arizona Consumer Fraud Act to prescription drugs | CFA applies to sale/advertisement of prescription meds; Medicis' materials were promotional and misleading | Prescription drugs are not "merchandise" for CFA purposes | CFA applies to sale and advertisement of prescription medications; Watts pleaded elements of private CFA claim |
| Learned intermediary doctrine vs. UCATA (product-liability duty to warn) | Doctrine is outdated with direct-to-consumer marketing and conflicts with UCATA’s several-only liability; manufacturer can be at fault for consumer-directed misinformation | Learned intermediary shields manufacturer if adequate warning given to prescribing physician | Learned intermediary doctrine cannot coexist with UCATA; manufacturer may be liable to consumers for misleading consumer-directed information; claim survives 12(b)(6) |
| Punitive damages / A.R.S. §12-701(A) (FDA compliance defense) | Seeks punitive damages for conscious misrepresentation | Manufacturer argues statutory and constitutional limits bar punitive damages | Dismissal of punitive claim vacated and remanded for factual development regarding FDA compliance; statutory/constitutional issues not resolved now |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyer v. Best Pharmacal, 118 Ariz. 465 (App. 1978) (adopted learned intermediary doctrine in Arizona)
- Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 217 Ariz. 222 (Ariz. 2007) (explained UCATA effect: several-only liability and allocation of fault among distributors)
- Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 110 Ariz. 573 (Ariz. 1974) (recognized private cause of action under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act)
- Maganas v. Northroup, 112 Ariz. 46 (Ariz. 1975) (motion post-judgment can extend appeal period; Rule 59 analogies)
- Hanen v. Willis, 102 Ariz. 6 (Ariz. 1967) (liberal construction of notice of appeal when no prejudice to appellee)
- Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 182 Ariz. 26 (App. 1994) (applied learned intermediary doctrine outside pharmaceuticals)