The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Arizona Court Revives Product Liability Case, Abolishes Learned Intermediary Doctrine

Posted on May 14, 2015 by Eleanor Smith
Arizona Court Revives Product Liability Case, Abolishes Learned Intermediary Doctrine

Prescription drugs are “often advertised and sold in a manner similar to other consumer goods, implicating the need for the protection.”

The Arizona Court of Appeals has taken an important defense away from drug manufacturing companies in a pro-consumer decision, finding pharmaceutical drugs are merely ordinary merchandise covered by state consumer fraud laws. After reviving a products liability case, Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., the Court abolished the “learned intermediary” doctrine.

This recent decision removes barriers to lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers, recognizing that state consumer fraud statutes can be applied against the defendant, Medicis, and similar drug manufacturing companies. The trial court originally granted Medicis’ motion to dismiss the case entirely, but a sea change took place on the appellate level, where the Court of Appeals reversed.

“Protecting a prescription drug manufacturer from possible liability for its own actions, simply because another participant in the chain of distribution, is inconsistent with UCATA.”

When plaintiff Amanda Watts sued Medicis, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of Solodyn, a prescription acne medication, she alleged that the drug caused Lupus. Under a strict liability failure to warn theory, Watts additionally claimed Medicis knowingly provided false and misleading warning information under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).

The appeals court, in a three-judge panel, rejected Medicis’s argument that pharmaceuticals should not be deemed merchandise products under the CFA, finding that prescription drugs are “often advertised and sold to consumers in a manner similar to other consumer goods, implicating the need for the protection of the CFA.”

The court found Watts had effectively stated a claim by alleging Solodyn’s labeling and promotional materials had “affirmatively and falsely” misrepresented the drug’s safety, and that she relied on those statements.

Learned intermediary doctrine

The appeals court then turned to the “learned intermediary doctrine,” which shields a manufacturer from liability for failure to warn when it provides a proper warning to the specialized class of people, such as doctors, who are authorized to sell, install, or provide the product.

After considering the doctrine in the context of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), the court concluded “that protecting a prescription drug manufacturer from possible liability for its own actions in distributing a product, simply because another participant in the chain of distribution is also expected to act, is inconsistent with UCATA.” The UCATA abolishes joint and several liability, which prevents “a partially responsible defendant from being held liable for the damages by his co-defendant.”

Importantly, the learned intermediary doctrine has been entirely quashed in the state of Arizona, not just with respect to pharmaceutical manufacturers. The consequences of this decision are as of yet unknown, as it will be up to juries to determine where liability should be placed. As DRI Today noted, “Juries may well re-affirm what the learned intermediary doctrine always assumed – that doctors and other learned intermediaries alone must be responsible for failing to communicate the warnings that they receive – or they could open a new avenue of liability for manufacturers who can no longer rely on doctors’ and other intermediaries’ duties to warn consumers.”

The case is Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Case No. 1 CA-CV 13-0358, filed on January 29, 2015. Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

Posted in Blog, Personal Injury, Product Liability

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.