In this рersonal injury action, it is alleged that Central Merchandise, Inc., d/b/a Super D Drugs, negligently dispensed prescription medication to Juanita D. Nichols which caused bone abnormalities in her subsequently born child, Dario Nichols. Juanita and Dario Nichols аppeal the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Super D Drugs. We affirm.
The facts are not in serious dispute. During the first trimester оf her pregnancy, Juanita Nichols developed a urinary tract infection. Dr. VandeGarde, aware of her pregnаncy, prescribed Gantanol. Super D Drugs filled the prescription and Dario was later born without hands or feet.
The package insert for Gantanol stated:
“Warnings: Usage in pregnancy: The safe use of sulfonamides in pregnancy has not been established. The teratogenicity potential of most sulfonamides has not been thoroughly investigated in either animals or humans. However, a significant increase in the incident оf cleft palate and other bony abnormalities of offspring has been observed when certain sulfonamides of the shоrt, intermediate and long-acting types were given to pregnant rats and mice at high oral doses (7 to 25 times the human therapeutic dose).”
The trial court granted Super D Drugs summary judgment on the ground the pharmacy had no legal duty to warn either Juanita Nichols or Dr. VandeGarde of the information contained in the package insert.
Later, plaintiffs settled with the drug manufacturеr and, two weeks into a jury trial, plaintiffs settled with all remaining defendants. Plaintiffs appeal only the summary judgment in favor of the phаrmacy.
Summary judgment, of course, is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to a material fact and thе moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-256;
Patterson v. Brouhard,
These facts are not controverted: Dixie Wilson, the dispensing рharmacist at Super D Drugs, knew about the statement in the package insert, knew or suspected that Juanita Nichols was pregnant, did not consult with Dr. VandeGarde regarding the advisability of the drug, and did not inform Nichols of the statement contained in the pаckage insert.
Since the existence of a duty on the part of the pharmacy is a question of law, see
Durflinger v. Artiles,
Adrhinistrative rеgulations define a pharmacist’s duties as reading and interpreting prescriptions, accurately filling prescriptions, affixing necessary labels, and “initiating oral patient consultation on new prescriptions as a matter of routine to еncourage proper patient drug utilization and administration.” K.A.R. 68-2-20.
DNie Wilson attached warning labels to the prescription instructing Nichols to drink lots of water and avoid sunlight. This would seem to satisfy the requirement of encouraging proper utilization and аdministration of the drug. See K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 65-1637.
In sharp contrast in the present case, Super D Drugs did not manufacture the Gantаnol dispensed to Nichols and did not “push” or recommend its use.
Manufacturers of prescription drugs do have a duty to warn of dangerous side effects and risks associated with the drugs.
Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.,
As the learned intermediary between manufacturer and patient, the doctor must inform himself or herself of a drug’s characteristics and determine what fаcts should be told to the patient.
In the present case, because the doctor is the learned intermediary betwеen the manufacturer and the patient, the patient should rely on the doctor; the pharmacist, at least under the fаcts of this case, has no legal duty to warn the patient of potential consequences from the use of the drug prescribed by the doctor. See,
e.g., Pysz v. Henry's Drug Store,
Because the decision to prescribe a specific drug involves an analysis of the patient’s unique condition and a balancing of the risks and benefits of a given drug, the cases extending the learned intermediary doctrine to pharmacists reason that imposing a duty to wаrn on the pharmacist would intrude on the doctor-patient relationship and would force the pharmacist to prаctice medicine without a license. See
Eldridge,
We agree with the Washington Supreme Court, which surveyed the jurisdictions extending the learned intermediary doctrine to pharmacists and concluded:
“The pharmacist still has a duty to accurately fill a prescription [сitation omitted] and to be alert for clear errors or mistakes in the prescription. The pharmacist does not, however, have a duty to question a judgment made by the physician as to the propriety of a prescription or to wаrn customers of the hazardous side effects associated with a drug, either orally or by way of the manufacturer’s package insert.” McKee v. American Home Products,113 Wash. 2d at 720 .
In the present case, the pharmacist accurately filled Nichols’ prescription for Gantanol. Thеre were no clear errors on the face óf the prescription, Gantanol was not contraindicated for use by Nichols, ánd Dr. VandeGarde’s decision to prescribe the drug was within the realm of his professional judgment.
Under the facts of this cаse, Super D Drugs and its pharmacist owed no duty to warn Juanita Nichols or the doctor. Summary judgment was proper.
We need not address the additional issues raised by the parties.
Affirmed.